Succes for skeptiker konference

10/12 Copenhagen Climate Challenge 8.-9. december blev en overvældende succes og tiltrak sig media interesse fra hele verden. Det lykkedes at gennembryde mediernes tavshedsmur og efterfølgende har der været øget interesse for at finde frem til sandheden bag klima forandringerne.


Ca 50 tilhørere indfandt sig, men i løbet af formiddagen på førstedagen deltog et væld af tv-folk, journalister og it-skribenter til websider overalt i verden. I de efterfølgende dage blev der bragt nyheder, reportager og interviews i f.eks. The Times, New York Times, Daily Telegrah lange positive artikler. ½ side i Berlingske, ½ side i Folketidende og io Information. Derudover Frankfurter Allgemeine, Dagens Næringsliv, Indian Financial Times, Russia today som hovednyhed en hel dag. Direkte interview i radioavisen. DR Opdate.  Blev nævnt i TV2 avisen og TVA. Fox News, The Guardian, amerikanske web tv og radiokanaler, redigerede indslag på You tube. ABC news direkte interview (Australien) + hovedhistorier i flere australske aviser. Ogsa Reuters TV lavede indslag. Osv osv

Konferencen formål var at få sandheden ud gennem medierne til befolkningen og samtidig udfordre medierne til at sætte sig ind i de videnskabelige forskningsresultater, der modsagde IPCC og formidle dem.

På You Tube kan redigeret uddrag af konferencen ses på disse:

Part 1 - Climate Sceptics or Climate Realists
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhX0KTE5LV0
- Part 2- Climate Sceptics or Climate Realists
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIbNLXHyrqQ
- Part 3- Climate Sceptics or Climate Realists
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIy0dEIaKuY

Læs artikel i The Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6948960.ece

Udfordringen til IPCC


På konferencen blev Climate Challenge offentliggjort. Flere end 150 videnskabsmænd fra hele verden, alle med klimatologi som speciale bad med deres underskrift IPCC om at bevise de mange påstande om menneskeskabt global opvarmning. I 10 punkter udbad man sig forskningsresultater i modsætning til computerberegninger om global klimaændring og dets påståede følger.

Læs Climate Challenge her:  www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org


Sceptics mount offensive/skeptikere i modangreb

Copenhagen Climate Challenge present 8.-9. december at a conference in Copenhagen some of the worlds leading sceptics. New scientific findings about global warming will be published at the conference.


På Copenhagen Climate Challenge taler nogle af verdens førende videnskabsmænd og fremlægger nye forskningsresultater om klimaforandringer, der modsiger IPCC


Copenhagen


Climate Challenge


Conference on December 8th and 9th at the
Dansk Forfatterforening, Strandgade 6, 1401 København K

Our Chairman

Craig Rucker: Is the Executive director and Co-Founder of CFACT.  He has worked extensively on numerous environmental issues.

Our Speakers

Professor S. Fred Singer: Is now President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project.  He is internationally known for his work on energy and environmental issues.

Lord Christopher Monckton: Is chief policy advisor to the Science and Public Policy Institute and was policy advisor to the UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

Professor Ian Plimer: Is Professor of Mining Geology at the University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne.  He has recently published a definitive book on the Earth's Climate Heaven and Earth.

H. Leighton Steward: Is a geologist, environmentalist and sometime energy industry executive.  He is currently engaged in explaining the benefits of CO2 as it relates to the eco-systems of life on Earth.

Professor Niklas Nils-Axel Morner: Is the former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University.  He is an expert on world sea levels and has conducted and exhaustive study of the Maldive Islands.  He has recently returned from Bangladesh where his research on sea levels has produced some surprising results.

Professor Cliff Ollier: Is a geologist and emeritus professor at the School of Earth and Environmental Studies, University of Western Australia.  He is an expert on Glaciers and Ice Caps.

Martin Ågerup: Is the President and CEO of the Centre for Policy Studies (CEPOS) based in Copenhagen.  The Centre has carried out a study of the Danish experience of wind turbines.  He is one of the most cited opinion leaders in Denmark.
David Gress: Is a Danish American historian who was awarded a doctorate in medieval history from Bryn Mawr College.  He was Professor of the History of Civilisation at Boston University and a Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Stuart Wheeler: Is a British businessman who first practiced as a barrister and later became an investment banker.  His company IG Index pioneered spread betting.  He has long been active in British politics and is a passionate campaigner against the alarmist climate change industry. He is a well known philanthropist and supports AI and Human Right Watch.

Adgang kun efter forudgående tilmelding til climate-sense@live.dk


Please book for admittance  climate-sense@live.dk


se programmet / see the programme


 




21/11 Climategate: Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

Read The Daily Telegraph:


Finsk TV-dokumentar: ICPP manipulerer/Finnish TV documentary: ICPP manipulates science

11/11 I en opsigtsvækkende dokumentar afslører finsk tv, at videnskabelige forskningsresultater udelades, andre anvendes falsk og at hovedparten af konklusionerne om at der er sket en global opvarmning i 1900-tallet bygger på få data, som i dokumentaren betegnes som "tilfældige" og som finske forskere ikke ville drømme om at bygge en teori op om.


En TV-dokumentar som dansk tv bør vise. Nedenfor klip af citaterne i engelsk oversættelse og læs hele dokumentaren:


Finnish TV documentary exposes IPCC


Below some of the comments and read the complete transscript:

Steve McIntyre, an outsider in climate science, had succeeded in breaking Mann's hockey stick, the icon of the climate change movement. But the story was not over. A whole factory started to produce new sticks to replace the broken one.


VO: So the Yamal data included only ten living trees from the 1990's, and the rapid growth of these individuals caused the steep rise of the hockey stick blade. In Finnish dendrological studies, hardly anything would be said based on just ten trees. What's demanded is at least 50 trees for each year, and several other quality criteria as well.

VO: The CRU database is the most important scientific justification for the demands that the most ambitious treaty in mankind's history should be finalized in Copenhagen in December. In spite of this, there is no way to replicate its' validity.

Recently the CRU director Phil Jones has announced that the original measurement data does not exist anymore because of data storage difficulties. A dog ate the world's most important scientific measurement homework.

Dr. Atte Korhola, professor of environmental change at the University of Helsinki, is an expert in lake sediment studies.

Atte Korhola: "Some curves and data have been used upside down, and this is not a compliment to climate science. And in this context it is relevant to note that the same people who are behind this are running what may be the world's most influential climate website, RealClimate. With this they are contributing to the credibility of science - or reducing it. And in my opinion this is alarming because it bears on the credibility of the field, and if these kinds of things emerge often - that data have been used insufficiently or even falsely, or if data series have been truncated or they have not been appropriately published (for replication), it obviously erodes the credibility, and this is a serious problem."

VO: A poorly known fact is that, global climate stopped warming after a two-decade period (in the late 1900's). Since 1998 there has been no statistically measured global warming. Instead, the climate has slightly cooled for several years. Not one of the climate models used by the IPCC was able to predict this turn of events.

Some new studies predict the cooling phase to continue longer, maybe for a couple of decades. In spite of that, many leading scientists affiliated with the IPCC still claim that global warming continues, even faster than predicted.

Meanwhile, some of the catastrophic consequences predicted by the models have been revealed as overblown. The Arctic sea ice has started to recover from its' minimum area recorded two years ago, Antarctic melting has slowed down to a minimum during measured history, sea level rise has not accelerated from its' previous rate, and hurricane seasons have been mild. Nature has not obeyed the manuscript.



24/10: The sea level i not rising and there is no threat to the Maldives, swedish ocean scientist says/Maldiverne er ikke truet af højere vandstand, siger den svenske professor Niels-Axel Mörner

Open letter to the president of the Maldives


Your cabinet meeting under water is a pr-stunt and You menace Your people with the imaginary threat of a disastrous flooding allready in progress

Maldives_Underwater_385922c

N ils-Axel Mörner | October 20, 2009



You have recently held an undersea Cabinet meeting to raise awareness of the idea that global sea level is rising and hence threatens to drown the Maldives. This proposition is not founded in observational facts and true scientific judgements, Accordingly it is incorrect.

Therefore, I am most surprised at your action and must protest to its intended message.

In 2001, when our research group found overwhelming evidence that sea level was by no means in a rising mode in the Maldives, but had remained quite stable for the last 30 years, I thought it would not be respectful to the fine people of the Maldives if I were to return home and present our results in international fora. Therefore, I announced this happy news during an interview for your local TV station. However, your predecessor as president censored and stopped the broadcast.

When you became president, I was hoping both for democracy and for dialogue. However, I have written to you twice without reply. Your people ought not to have to suffer a constant claim that there is no future for them on their own islands. This terrible message is deeply inappropriate, since it is founded not upon reality but upon an imported concept, which lacks scientific justification and is thus untenable. There is simply no rational basis for it.

Let me summarize a few facts  (1) In the last 2000 years, sea level has oscillated with 5 peaks reaching 0.6 to 1.2 m above the present sea level. (2) From 1790 to 1970 sea level was about 20 cm higher than today. (3) In the 1970s, sea level fell by about 20 cm to its present level. (4) Sea level has remained stable for the last 30 years, implying that there are no traces of any alarming on-going sea level rise. (5) Therefore, we are able to free the Maldives (and the rest of low-lying coasts and island around the globe) from the condemnation of becoming flooded in the near future.

When I was president for the INQUA commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999-2003), we spent much effort on the question of present-to-future sea level changes. After intensive field studies, deliberation within the commission and discussions at five international meeting, we agreed on a "best estimate" for possible sea level changes by the year 2100. Our figure was +10 cm ±10 cm. This figure was later revised at +5 cm ±15cm.  Such changes would imply small to negligible effects. 3 From our sea level curve, we can directly see that such a small rise would pose no threat for the Maldives. Rather, it would be a natural return to the conditions existing from1790 to 1970; i.e. to the position before the sea level fall in the 1970s.
The same non-rising sea level story is recorded for all other areas claimed to be under a flooding already in progress; viz. Tuvalu, Vanuatu and Venice (Mörner, 2007b). Besides, the proposed global trend derived from satellite altimetry have been tampered by a "personal correction" in order to create a rising trend (Mörner, 2008), actually not measured.. Thermal expansion of the water column may affect the ocean level by some centimetres to adecimetre. At the shore, however, the effect is zero (Mörner, 2000, 2005a, 2009a).

The Maldives Sea Level Curve of the last 500 years  and the proposed best estimate of possible sea level changes by year 2100  This curve is a detail (without error bars, anchor points and curved breaking points) from the one presented by Mörner,(2007). Sea level has been stable for the last 30 years. Future changes in the next century are by no means alarming; at the most it would imply a return to the pre-1970 situation with an about 20 cm higher sea level as was the case from 1790 to 1970. These are the observational facts and the consequences to face for the future: i.e. no real problems and certainly no reason for any alarm and SOS message.

So, Mr. President, when you ignore to face available observational facts, refuses a normal democratic dialogue, and continue to menace your people with the imaginary threat of a disastrous flooding already in progress, I think you are doing a serious mistake.

Let us be constructive. Let us discuss available observational facts. Let us continue and extend our sea level project to new sites in the huge Maldivian atoll archipelago.

And let us, for Heaven’s sake, lift the terrible psychological burden that you and your predecessor have placed upon the shoulders of all people in the Maldives, who are now living with the imagined threat that flooding will soon drive them from their homes, a wholly false notion that is nothing but an armchair fiction artificially constructed by mere computer modelling constantly proven wrong by meticulous real-world observations.
Your cabinet meeting under the water is nothing but a misdirected gimmick or PR stunt. Al Gore is a master in such cheep techniques. But such misconduct is dishonest, unproductive and certainly most un-scientific.

Stockholm, Sweden,






Nils-Axel Mörner




ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Our international research group have had the pleasure to undertake very sophisticated studies in the Maldives. Personally, I have been there six times in this mission, including three one month-long research expeditions. We have become much in love with the remarkable nature and the wonderful local people of the Maldives. My critics should be seen as a sign of this respect in combination with a non-negotiable conviction that we must base our claims and actions on observational facts.


Leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project (2000 on) Chairman of the INTAS project on Geomagnetism and Climate (1997-2003) Awarded the Golden Condrite of Merit from Algarve University (2008) "for his irreverence and contribution to our understanding of sea level change."

Head of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics at Stockholm University, Sweden (1991-2005) President of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999-2003)






--- 2/10 Scientific fraud behind global warming claims! The "Hockey stick"-curve is false

 

Af James Delingpole, journalist, in The Daily Telegraph' blog

For the growing band of AGW “Sceptics” the following story is dynamite.


Those of you who saw An Inconvenient Truth  may remember, if you weren’t asleep by that stage, the key scene where big green Al deploys his terrifying graph to show how totally screwed we all are by man-made global warming. This graph – known as the Hockey Stick Curve – purports to show rising global temperatures through the ages. In the part representing the late twentieth century it shoots up almost vertically. To emphasise his point that this is serious and that if we don’t act NOW we’re doomed, Al Gore – wearing a wry smile which says: “Sure folks, this is kinda funny. But don’t forget how serious it is too” – climbs on to a mini-lift in order to be able to reach the top of the chart. Cue consensual gasps from his parti pris audience.

Except that the graph – devised in 1998 by a US climatologist called Dr Michael Mann -  is based on a huge lie, as Sceptics have been saying for quite some time. The first thing they noticed is that this “Hockey Stick” (based on tree ring data, one of the most accurate ways of recording how climate changes over the centuries) is that it seemed completely to omit the Medieval Warming Period.

According to Mann’s graph, the hottest period in modern history was NOT the generally balmy era between 900 and 1300 but the late 20th century. This led many sceptics, among them a Canadian mathematician named Steve McIntyre to smell a rat. He tried to replicate Mann’s tree ring work but was stymied by lack of data: ie the global community of climate-fear-promotion scientists closed ranks and refused to provide him with any information that might contradict their cause.

This is the point where British climate change scientists appear – and in a most unedifying light. As Christopher Booker has reported the Met Office, its Hadley Centre in Exeter and the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at University of East Anglia are among the primary drivers of global climate change alarmism. Their data has formed the basis for the IPCC’s “we’re all doomed” reports; their scientists – among them Professor Phil Jones and tree ring expert Professor Keith Briffa – have been doughty supporters of Mann’s Hockey Stick theory and of the computer models showing inexorably rising temperatures.

Hence their misleading predictions of that “barbecue summer” we never had. As Booker says: “Part of the reason why the Met Office has made such a mess of its forecasts for Britain is that they are based on the same models which failed to predict the declining trend in world temperatures since 2001.

When McIntyre approached the Met Office and the CRU for more information they refused, claiming implausibly that it would damage Britain’s “international relations” with all the countries that supplied it. Later they went a step further and claimed the data had been mislaid.

And there McIntyre’s efforts to uncover the mystery of the Hockey Stick might have ended, had he not had a stroke of luck, as Chris Horner explains at Planet Gore.

“Years go by. McIntyre is still stymied trying to get access to the original source data so that he can replicate the Mann 1998 conclusion. In 2008 Mann publishes another paper in bolstering his tree ring claim due to all of the controversy surrounding it. A Mann co-author and source of tree ring data (Professor Keith Briffa of the Hadley UK Climate Research Unit) used one of the tree ring data series (Yamal in Russia) in a paper published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 2008, which has a strict data archiving policy. Thanks to that policy, Steve McIntyre fought and won access to that data just last week.”

When finally McIntyre plotted in a much larger and more representative range of samples than used those used by Briffa – though from exactly the same area – the results he got were startlingly different.

Have a look at the graph at Climate Audit (which broke the story and has been so inundated with hits that its server was almost overwhelmed) and see for yourself.

http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/rcs_chronologies_rev2.gif

The scary red line shooting upwards is the one Al Gore, Michael Mann, Keith Briffa and their climate-fear-promotion chums would like you to believe in. The black one, heading downwards, represents scientific reality.

We “Global Warming Deniers” are often accused of ignoring the weight of scientific opinion. Well if the “science” on which they base their theories is as shoddy as Mann’s Hockey Stick, is it any wonder we think they’re talking cobblers?

Update: Friday 2 October. Since I posted this piece Keith Briffa has vehemently denied having “cherry picked” his data, explaining rather that this was the result of his having inherited a subset of tree ring data preselected by the Russians. For the latest on this complex story, I recommend a visit to Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit site.

Read also the article in The Spectator: http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5389461/the-great-global-warming-scam-ctd.thtml


Apocalypse? No!