COP16 AR5 Aerosols, geo-engineering, wolken-behandeling.Mr.Pachauri IPPC !

[zonbron]

Volledige studie van de Climategate emails.

Important New Paper

Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt?
by Dr David Evans

"How many excuses does it take? The Western Climate Establishment has allowed egregious mistakes, major errors, and obvious biases to accumulate - each factor on its own might be hard to pin down, but the pattern is undeniable."

"The public might not understand the science, but they do understand cheating..."

lavoisier

The Climategate Emails
edited and annotated by John Costella

In November 2009, an anonymous whistleblower put just over 1000 emails comprising email traffic to and from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) on an obscure Russian website. They were subsequently rapidly disseminated around the world.

These emails show a tightly knit cabal of scientists adjusting temperature data to conform to their political agenda; exerting pressure to censor publications going into the "peer reviewed" literature (usually with complete success); bullying journalists with threats of excommunication so that what was published in the mainstream media was in accordance with the global warming agenda; and using the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the primary vehicle for their political ambitions.

To work through these emails, in order to discover what was going on, is a major undertaking. John Costella has provided us with an edited and annotated account of the emails which enables the lay person, in a relatively short time, to understand what was going on and how it was done.

This PDF version of the published book will provide access to everyone who is concerned with this great debate. It is available here.

[zonbron]

Meer ivm de posting van 21 juli 2011

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door zonbron

Spoedig goed nieuws van CERN ? http://forum.politics.be/showpost.ph...3&postcount=88

GOED NIEUWS !

CERN experiment confirms cosmic ray action

Climate Change
The global warmists’ dam breaks



A graph they'd prefer you not to notice. Tucked away near the end of online supplementary material, and omitted from the printed CLOUD paper in Nature, it clearly shows how cosmic rays promote the formation of clusters of molecules (“particles”) that in the real atmosphere can grow and seed clouds. In an early-morning experimental run at CERN, starting at 03.45, ultraviolet light began making sulphuric acid molecules in the chamber, while a strong electric field cleansed the air of ions. It also tended to remove molecular clusters made in the neutral environment (n) but some of these accumulated at a low rate. As soon as the electric field was switched off at 04.33, natural cosmic rays (gcr) raining down through the roof of the experimental hall in Geneva helped to build clusters at a higher rate. How do we know they were contributing? Because when, at 04.58, CLOUD simulated stronger cosmic rays with a beam of charged pion particles (ch) from the accelerator, the rate of cluster production became faster still. The various colours are for clusters of different diameters (in nanometres) as recorded by various instruments. The largest (black) took longer to grow than the smallest (blue). This is Fig. S2c from supplementary online material for J. Kirkby et al., Nature, 476, 429-433, © Nature 2011

...

By an unpleasant irony, the only Svensmark contribution acknowledged in the Nature report is the 1997 paper (Svensmark and Friis-Christensen) on which I based my CERN lecture. There’s no mention of the successful experiments in ion chemistry and molecular cluster formation by the Danish team in Copenhagen, Boulby and latterly in Aarhus where they beat CLOUD to the first results obtained using a particle beam (instead of gamma rays and natural cosmic rays) to ionize the air in the experimental chamber

What will historians of science make of this breach of scientific etiquette? That Kirkby was cross because Svensmark, losing patience with the long delay in getting approval and funding for CLOUD, took matters into his own hands? Or because Svensmark’s candour about cosmic rays casting doubt on catastrophic man-made global warming frightened the national funding agencies? Or was Kirkby simply doing his best (despite the results) to obey his Director General by slighting all things Danish?

Personal rivalries aside, the important question is what the new CLOUD paper means for the Svensmark hypothesis. Pick your way through the cautious prose and you’ll find this:

“Ion-induced nucleation [cosmic ray action] will manifest itself as a steady production of new particles [molecular clusters] that is difficult to isolate in atmospheric observations because of other sources of variability but is nevertheless taking place and could be quite large when averaged globally over the troposphere [the lower atmosphere].”

It’s so transparently favourable to what the Danes have said all along that I’m surprised the warmists’ house magazine Nature is able to publish it, even omitting the telltale graph shown at the start of this post. Added to the already favourable Danish experimental findings, the more detailed CERN result is excellent. Thanks a million, Jasper.

Enlightening chemistry

And in friendlier times we’d be sharing champagne for a fine discovery with CLOUD, that traces of ammonia can increase the production of the sulphuric clusters a thousandfold. It’s highlighted in the report’s title: “Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation” and it was made possible by the more elaborate chemical analysis in the big-team set-up in Geneva

...

In telling how the obviously large influences of the Sun in previous centuries and millennia could be explained, and in applying the same mechanism to the 20th warming, Svensmark put the alarmist predictions at risk – and with them the billions of dollars flowing from anxious governments into the global warming enterprise.

For the dam that was meant to ward off a growing stream of discoveries coming from the spring in Copenhagen, the foundation was laid on the day after the Danes first announced the link between cosmic rays and clouds at a space conference in Birmingham, England, in 1996. “Scientifically extremely naïve and irresponsible,” Bert Bolin declared, as Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
calderup

Dit is het bewijs dat kosmische straling een uiterst belangrijke factor is in het proces van wolkenvorming. Deze resultaten zouden de hypothese van kunnen Svensmark bevestigen. Wikipedia (Henrik_Svensmark)

De hypothese van Svensmark :

1. het is aannemelijk dat kosmische straling een belangrijke rol speelt bij het ontstaan van lage bewolking.
2. lage bewolking heeft op de hele wereld, behalve in Antarctica, een overwegend afkoelend effect.
3. de kosmische straling wordt in het melkwegstelsel en neemt toe naarmate er meer stervorming in de directe omgeving van de aarde plaatsvindt.
4. het magnetisch veld van de zon werkt als een beschermend schild tegen deze kosmische straling.
5. de sterkte van het magnetisch veld van de zon fluctueert in de tijd, met name in relatie met de zonnevlekken-activiteit.

Door deze hypothese kunnen een aantal verklaringen gegeven worden.

Doordat de zonneactiveit (zie ook zonnevlekken) de laatste honderd jaar is toegenomen, bereikt minder kosmische straling het aardoppervlak met als gevolg minder wolken en daardoor een stijging van de gemiddelde temperatuur. Omdat minder wolken in Antarctica eerder een afkoelend effect hebben, verklaart Svensmark dat de opwarming op Antarctica veel minder geprononceerd verloopt dan op het Noordelijk Halfrond.

De relatie tussen het Maunderminimum en de toen heersende extra lage temperaturen tijdens de kleine ijstijd in Europa kan hiermee worden verklaard.

De beweging van de zon door de spiraalstructuur van het melkwegstelsel en de daarmee veranderende hoeveelheid kosmische straling die het zonnestelsel bereikt, kan als oorzaak gezien worden van de ijstijden.

Bij CERN in het project "CLOUD" wordt onderzocht hoe kosmische deeltjes via aerosolen waterdruppeltjes kunnen laten ontstaan.

CLOUD in Nature: vanaf nu zijn alarmisten de “sceptici”

De lang verbeide resultaten van het CLOUD experiment van CERN zijn gepubliceerd in de vandaag verschijnende nieuwe uitgave van Nature. Nigel Calder wijdt er al een uitgebreid zeer informatief artikel (tot onderaan doorlezen!) aan dat hij de titel meegeeft:

CERN experiment confirms cosmic ray action - The global warmists’ dam breaks

Ook het artikel op nature.com – Cloud formation may be linked to cosmic rays – spreekt boekdelen. Verschillende wetenschappers waaronder Svensmark himself juichen de resultaten toe als een doorbraak in de richting van een hard bewijs voor de stelling dat de zonneactiviteit via de indirecte invloed op wolkvorming het klimaat moduleert, zoals iemand als Bas van Geel natuurlijk allang wist.

Mooi is de volgende passage:

Others disagree. The CLOUD experiment is “not firming up the connection”, counters Mike Lockwood, a space and environmental physicist at the University of Reading, UK, who is sceptical. Lockwood says that the small particles may not grow fast enough or large enough to be important in comparison with other cloud-forming processes in the atmosphere.

Vanaf nu: tref je aan de borreltafel een alarmist of duurzaamheidsfreak vraag de persoon in kwestie dan steevast:

Moet ik concluderen dat je nog steeds in het sceptische kamp zit?

Bron: climategate

Besluit: Men begrijpt meer over hoe de zon en kosmische straling het klimaat kunnen beinvloeden en hoe men de klimaatmodellen eventueel zal moeten aanpassen. Nog volgende opmerking...

So what does this all add up

In short: cosmic rays influence cloud seeds….influencing climate. This has BIG implications for climate science.

Meer nieuwe experimenten/onderzoek zijn nodig om een beter inzicht te krijgen op welke manier kosmische deeltjes via aerosolen waterdruppeltjes kunnen laten ontstaan.


Meer ivm het CLOUD experiment en AGW...

Breaking News CERN experiment confirms cosmic rays influence climate change

agw-is-under-attack-by-cosmic-rays/

CLOUD Experiment Trashes AGW Theory Video

CERN News - CLOUD Video

[zonbron]

Een aanrader, het CLOUD-verhaal.

Sun Causes Climate Change Shock


If Michael Crichton had lived to write a follow-up to State of Fear, the plotline might well have gone like this: at a top secret, state of the art laboratory in Switzerland, scientists finally discover the true cause of “global warming”. It’s the sun, stupid. More specifically – as the Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark has long postulated – it’s the result of cosmic rays which act as a seed for cloud formation. The scientists working on the project are naturally euphoric: this is a major breakthrough which will not only overturn decades of misguided conjecture on so-called Man Made Global Warming but will spare the global economy trillions of dollars which might otherwise have been squandered on utterly pointless efforts to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions. However, these scientists have failed to realise just how many people – alarmist scientists, huckster politicians, rent-seeking landowners like (the late Michael Crichton’s brilliant and, of course, entirely fictional creation) the absurd, pompous Sir Reginald Leeds Bt, green activists, eco-fund managers, EU technocrats, MSM environmental correspondents – stand to gain from the Man Made “Climate Change” industry. Their discovery must be suppressed at all costs. So, one by one, the scientists on the cosmic ray project find themselves being bumped off, until only one man remains and must race against time to prove, etc, etc…

Lees meer : The Telegraph

[zonbron]

De profileratie van de geoengineering

Giant pipe and balloon to pump water into the sky in climate experiment
Field test by British academics marks first step towards recreating an artificial volcano that would inject particles into the stratosphere and cool the planet

John Vidal, environment editor
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 31 August 2011 16.00 BST



It sounds barmy, audacious or sci-fi: a tethered balloon the size of Wembley stadium suspended 20km above Earth, linked to the ground by a giant garden hose pumping hundreds of tonnes of minute chemical particles a day into the thin stratospheric air to reflect sunlight and cool the planet.

But a team of British academics will next month formally announce the first step towards creating an artificial volcano by going ahead with the world's first major "geo-engineering" field-test in the next few months. The ultimate aim is to mimic the cooling effect that volcanoes have when they inject particles into the stratosphere that bounce some of the Sun's energy back into space, so preventing it from warming the Earth and mitigating the effects of man-made climate change.

Before the full-sized system can be deployed, the research team will test a scaled-down version of the balloon-and-hose design. Backed by a £1.6m government grant and the Royal Society, the team will send a balloon to a height of 1km over an undisclosed location. It will pump nothing more than water into the air, but it will allow climate scientists and engineers to gauge the engineering feasibility of the plan. Ultimately, they aim to test the impact of sulphates and other aerosol particles if they are sprayed directly into the stratosphere

...

guardian

[zonbron]

Nobelprijswinnaar Ivar Giaever geeft zijn lidmaatschap bij de 'Fellow from the American Physical Society' (APS) op als gevolg van de leugens ivm de antropogene globale opwarming en het op immorele wijze angst zaaien 'Fear-Mongering'.

Giaever was een van de belangrijkste wetenschappelijke Obama-adviseurs gedurende het jaar 2008.

Zonder twijfel weerom een zware klap voor de GW-religie.

Nobel Laureate Resigns From Society Because Of Its Global Warming Fear-Mongering
"Health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period," Nobel prize winner says


Nobel prize winner for physics in 1973 Dr. Ivar Giaever resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) on September 13, 2011 in disgust over the group's promotion of man-made global warming fears.

By Marc Morano
September 14, 2011

Climate Depot has obtained the exclusive email Giaever sent to APS Executive Officer Kate Kirby to announce his formal resignation. Dr. Giaever wrote to Kirby of APS:

“Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I cannot live with the (APS) statement below (on global warming): APS: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.'

Giaever announced his resignation from APS was due to the group's belief in man-made global warming fears. Giaever explained in his email to APS:

"In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.’"

Giaever was one of President Obama's key scientific supporters in 2008. Giaever joined over 70 Nobel Science Laureates in endorse Obama in an October 29, 2008 open letter. In addition to Giaever, other prominent scientists have resigned from APS over its stance on man-made global warming.

cnsnews

[D'ARTOIS]

Dit zijn gevolgen van de Amerikaanse gangsteroperaties om uit "Emissierechten" geld te peuren.
Een van de grote stommerikken die daar op ingaat is Nederland. Dat het een geinstigeerde VS gangsteroperatie is, schijn tot nog toe niemand te deren.

[zonbron]

Meer over het SPICE-project (Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering) of hoe men de atmosferische gevolgen van vulkaanuitbarstingen wil simuleren.

High hopes for Norfolk's artificial volcano in fight against climate change
The project could result in 20 balloons, each the size of Wembley Stadium, firing tonnes of dust into the air at 20km up

By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Wednesday, 14 September 2011

A disused airfield in Norfolk will become the focus of a controversial scientific experiment to see whether it is feasible to engineer the climate by cooling the planet with a simulated volcanic eruption.



Scientists and engineers plan to test the "geoengineering" idea at Sculthorpe Airfield near Fakenham next month by launching a helium-filled balloon tethered to a strengthened hosepipe which will spray tap water into the air at a height of 1km.

The project is one of the first geoengineering field trials in the world and could result in the deployment of a fleet of up to 20 giant balloons, each the size of Wembley Stadium, injecting millions of tonnes of sulphate particles at a height of 20km into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight back into space.

The researchers behind the trial say the project is designed to test the movements of the tethering system in the wind, and will not attempt to reflect sunlight or alter the climate in any way.

"It doesn't have an impact on the environment, it doesn't have an impact on the climate, it is simply a technology test. It is one of the first times that people have taken geoengineering out of the lab into the field," Matt Watson of Bristol University, who is in charge of the £1.6m study, said yesterday at the British Science Festival at Bradford University. "It's very important to us to be able to communicate what we are doing effectively and honestly to make sure everyone understands, because this is a controversial and potentially alarming subject."

Geoengineering has become a semi-respectable subject for scientists to discuss in public. However, opponents argue that it is impractical and dangerous. Even talking about it could deflect attention from the urgent need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the main cause of man-made global warming, they argue.

"No form of geoengineering is a replacement for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. It's very important, we are not advocating this as a good idea, we just want to know whether this is a good idea," Dr Watson said. "It's hard to imagine a situation except a dire emergency where this will be used but in order to have that conversation sensibly, we need to provide some evidence-based research."

Hugh Hunt of Cambridge University, who is leading the field test at Sculthorpe, said: "It may turn out that this whole strategy is a bad strategy, that's what we're trying to find out."

The test is part of a three-year project, Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (Spice),which uses knowledge gained from observations of the Mount Pinatubo), eruption in the Philippines in 1991, when volcanic sulphate particles enveloped theplanet, cooling it by about 0.5C for two years.

The project, involving the universities of Bristol, Cambridge, Edinburgh and Oxford, working with engineering company Marshall Aerospace, will evaluate the type of particles in solution that could be injected into the stratosphere, how they could best be carried 20km up and what effect the spraying would have on the global climate.

Dr Hunt said that a fleet of 10 to 20 giant balloons moored over the ocean and spraying at an altitude of 20km could cool the planet by about 2C at a cost of between £5bn and £50bn. "Because this is affordable, surely we must be thinking about it," he said.

independent

[zonbron]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door D'ARTOIS

Dit zijn gevolgen van de Amerikaanse gangsteroperaties om uit "Emissierechten" geld te peuren.
Een van de grote stommerikken die daar op ingaat is Nederland. Dat het een geinstigeerde VS gangsteroperatie is, schijn tot nog toe niemand te deren.

[zonbron]

Laserstralen in de hemel vuren kan regen produceren

Firing laser beams into the sky could make it rain, say scientists

Water droplets have been created by shooting lasers into the air. The technique might be used to create or prevent rain



Heavy rain in Kolkata, India. Lasers could offer some control over when and where rain falls. Photograph: Bikas Das/AP

Ever since ancient farmers called on the gods to send rain to save their harvests, humans have longed to have the weather at their command.

That dream has now received a boost after researchers used a powerful laser to produce water droplets in the air, a step that could ultimately help trigger rainfall.

While nothing can produce a downpour from dry air, the technique, called laser-assisted water condensation, might allow some control over where and when rain falls if the atmosphere is sufficiently humid.

Researchers demonstrated the technique in field tests after hauling a mobile laser laboratory the size of a small garage to the banks of the Rhône near lake Geneva in Switzerland.

Records from 133 hours of firings revealed that intense pulses of laser light created nitric acid particles in the air that behaved like atmospheric glue, binding water molecules together into droplets and preventing them from re-evaporating.

Within seconds, these grew into stable drops a few thousandths of a millimetre in diameter: too small to fall as rain, but large enough to encourage the scientists to press on with the work.

"We have not yet generated raindrops – they are too small and too light to fall as rain. To get rain, we will need particles a hundred times the size, so they are heavy enough to fall," said Jérôme Kasparian, a physicist at the University of Geneva. A report on the tests appears in the journal Nature Communications.

With improvements, shooting lasers into the sky could either help trigger or prevent showers. One possibility might be to create water droplets in air masses drifting towards mountains. The air would cool as it rose over these, causing the water droplets to grow and eventually fall.

An alternative might be to stave off an immediate downpour by creating so many tiny droplets in the air that none grew large enough to fall. "Maybe one day this could be a way to attenuate the monsoon or reduce flooding in certain areas," Kasparian said.

Efforts to bring the weather under control have become a matter of national pride in China, where the Beijing meterological bureau has an office devoted to weather modification. In 2009, the department claimed success after 18 jets and 432 explosive rockets laden with chemicals were sent into the skies to "seed" clouds. The chemicals, usually dry ice or silver iodide, provide a surface for water vapour to condense on, and supposedly trigger downpours from pregnant skies.

Kasparian believes laser-assisted rainmaking has advantages over blasting chemicals into the sky. "The laser can run continuously, you can aim it well, and you don't disperse huge amounts of silver iodide in the atmosphere," he said.

"You can also turn the laser on and off at will, which makes it easier to assess whether it has any effect. When the Chinese launch silver iodide into the sky, it is very hard to know whether it would have rained anyway," Kasparian added.

The team's Teramobile laser can shoot beams of light several kilometres into the sky, putting within easy reach the regions of the atmosphere where water vapour normally condenses into raindrops.

One modification the team is considering involves sweeping the laser across the sky to produce water droplets over a greater area. "From a technical point of view, sweeping the laser is not an issue. They do it in nightclubs all the time," Kasparian said.

guardian

[zonbron]

Al Gore maakt zich weerom belachelijk(er)

Greens Give Gore 2 Thumbs Down: Gore's climate 'reality' show faces strongly negative reviews from his fellow global warming activists

Environmental allies distance themselves from Gore: 'I actually avoided the Goreathon...Gore is now as much a hindrance as a help on climate...my heart immediately sank..most boring talk on climate, ever'
Friday, September 16, 2011By Marc Morano – Climate Depot



[Update - Sept. 18, 2011: -Yet Another Key Claim of Gore Bites the Dust! NOAA lead author of U.S. Climate Science Assessment Report on Texas drought: 'This is not a climate change drought' - For constant updates on Gore see here.]

Former Vice President Al Gore 24 hour climate “reality” show is surprisingly facing strongly negative reviews from Gore's fellow global warming activists and environmental allies. In addition, two German scientists ridiculed Gore for his "apocalyptic" tone and his "promise of salvation."

Climate activist Bob Ward was tepid about Gore's show. “One could complain that some of the presentations overstated the certainty and wrongly implied that individual weather events could be attributed to climate change,” lamented Ward. Ward is the Policy Director, for the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

Mike Shanahan, of the International Institute for Environment and Development, bragged that he purposefully avoided watching Gore's climate telethon.

“I actually avoided the Goreathon, and I guess that says something in itself,” Shanahan wrote. He added that a journalist sent him a text declaring: “Gore gets gold for most boring and least galvanizing talk on climate, ever...That, and possibly damaging.”

Shanahan was blunt in his opinion of Gore: “Climate Change needs a Gandhi or a Martin Luther King or a Mandela, and Al Gore is none of those.”

Other global warming activists were just as wary of having anything to do with Gore's attempt to link al bad weather to man-made global warming.

“Overall, I don't think this (Gore's) initiative will do much good. For one thing, Al Gore is now as much a hindrance as a help on climate change advocacy, as he's been characterized (probably unfairly) as a highly partisan figure, and so immediately gets about half of all folks offside,” Barry W. Brook, the director of climate science at the Environment Institute at University of Adelaide in Australia, said.

“Gore is in the situation that certain X-wing fighter pilot was during the assault on the Death Star (in the film Star Wars), when Luke Skywalker called out over the intercom: 'Pull out Wedge, you can't do any more good back there!'"

Brook went even further, declaring the entire man-made global warming debate to be futile.

“I think the climate change debate is over. It's like a snow mobile slipping on slush -- it isn't moving forward any time soon.”

The UK Guardian's Leo Hickman, a prominent media activist for man-made global warming, was embarrassed by Gore's extreme weather link to man-made global warming linkage.

“I was a little nervous this morning logging into Climate Reality...And, I have to say, my heart immediately sank,” when viewing it, Hickman wrote. Hickman asked: “Is Gore now a help or hindrance to global warming cause?” See: Hickman on Gore's 'Death by PowerPoint'-- “I have suffered this torture too many times over the years...[Gore's show had] slide after slide of extreme weather events...& linking everyone, it seemed, to rise in [man-made] emissions...that is a very contentious peg on which to hang your hat...That kind of talk traditionally requires lots of caveats and careful explaining. Done with abandon and raw emotion – as this presenter seemed to be doing – and you are quickly labeled in some quarters as a climate 'alarmist.'”

[Update: 9-19-11: New Scientist warmist Catherine Brahic pans Goreathon as 'cringe-worthy' and suggests 'Gore's time is over' -- 'Underwhelming 24 hours' Brahic: 'It was cringe-worthy, quite dull, and sadly not very compelling...I'm still left with the overwhelming feeling that Gore's time is over' -- 'Presenting climate change as an irrefutable, global scientific consensus does not work. People do not want to hear from a former US V.P. with a briefcase full of academic honours and a clear agenda']


...

Meer : climate depot

[zonbron]

Een nieuw schandaal waar U nog meer gaat over horen.

ATLASGATE

Een paar dagen geleden ondertekenden en verstuurden experten een verklaring ivm de weergave van de Groenlandse ijskap op de Atlas-landkaarten. Men geeft moedwillig de oppervlakte met minder ijs weer dan er in werkelijkheid aanwezig is. Grote gedeeltes, zelfs groter dan het VK worden afgebeeld als zijnde 'ijsvrij', waar dat in werkelijkheid niet het geval is.

Wetenschappers zwijgen niet langer...

Dear Sir,

A media release accompanying the publication of the 13th edition of The Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World states that the Atlas is ‘turning Greenland ‘green’’. We are extremely puzzled by this statement and the claim that ‘For the first time, the new edition of The Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World has had to erase 15% of Greenland’s once permanent ice cover – turning an area the size of the United Kingdom and Ireland ‘green’ and ice-free’. We write to point out that a 15% decrease in permanent ice cover since the publication of the previous atlas 12 years is both incorrect and misleading.

Recent satellite images of Greenland make it clear that there are in fact still numerous glaciers and permanent ice cover where the new Times Atlas shows ice-free conditions and the emergence of new lands. Furthermore, the low-lying fringe of the main ice sheet appears to be shown as land, not ice.

A sizable portion of the area mapped as ice-free in the Atlas is clearly still icecovered. We do not know why this error has occurred, but it is regrettable that the claimed drastic reduction in the extent of ice in Greenland has created headline news around the world. There is to our knowledge no support for this claim in the published scientific literature.

We do not disagree with the statement that climate is changing and that the Greenland Ice Sheet is affected by this. It is, however, crucial to report climate change and its impact accurately and to back bold statements with concrete and correct evidence.

The volume of ice contained in the Greenland Ice Sheet is approximately 2.9 million cubic kilometers and the current rate whereby ice is lost is roughly 200 cubic kilometers per year. This is on the order of 0.1% by volume over 12 years. Numerous glaciers have retreated over the last decade, capturing the attention of scientists, policymakers and the general public. Because of this retreat, many glaciers are now flowing faster and terrain previously ice-covered is emerging along the coast – but not at the rate suggested in The Times media release.

Yours faithfully,

Dr. Poul Christoffersen
Prof. Julian Dowdeswell (Director)
Mr. Toby Benham
Prof. Elizabeth M Morris
Dr. Ruth Mugford
Dr. Steven Palmer
Dr. Ian Willis

(Scott Polar Research Institute)



Dit schrijven in PDF formaat : Hier

Vandaag hebben verschillende kranten dit verhaal bekend gemaakt.

A greener Greenland? Times Atlas 'error' overstates global warming

By Tamara Cohen

Last updated at 11:06 AM on 20th September 2011


The publishers of the world’s most prestigious atlas have been caught out by Cambridge scientists exaggerating the effects of climate change.

In its latest edition, the £150 Times Atlas of the World has changed a huge coastal area of Greenland from white to green, suggesting an alarming acceleration of the melting of the northern ice cap.

Accompanying publicity material declared the change reflected ‘concrete evidence’ that 15 per cent of the ice sheet around the island – an area the size of the United Kingdom – had melted since 1999.

But last night the atlas’s publishers admitted that the ‘ice-free’ areas could in fact still be covered by sheets of more than a quarter of a mile thick.





It came after a group of leading polar scientists from Cambridge University wrote to them saying their changes were ‘incorrect and misleading’ and that the true rate of melting has been far slower.

Experts from the University’s internationally-renowned Scott Polar Research Institute said the apparent disappearance of 115,830 sq miles of ice had no basis in science and was contradicted by recent satellite images.

...


dailymail

Hmmm….another inconvenient error? Or did the Times deliberately embellish how much ice is missing in Greenland?
[/url]
Publishers of the Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World scrambled Tuesday to correct a controversial statement that Greenland had lost 15 percent of its permanent ice cover over the last 12 years.

That’s an awful lot of missing bullshit I mean ice. So how much was really lost? Oh only a ‘whopping’ 0.1 percent or so. Just a ‘minor’ difference, eh? It gets better. Mea culpa, mea culpa.

“The conclusion that was drawn from this, that 15 percent of Greenland’s once permanent ice cover has melted away, was highlighted in the press release, not in the Atlas itself,” HarpersCollins said in a statement. “This was done without consulting the scientific community and was incorrect.

OK, sounds good on the face of it. We get the old we screwed up and we’re sorry. But, it gets even better.

Maintaining the accuracy of the new maps though, may not be enough. When comparing the maps to recent satellite images Christofferson and his team found “numerous glaciers and permanent ice cover where the new Times Atlas shows ice-free conditions and the emergence of new lands.”

You decide! Do you think perhaps someone in the chain of publishing this atlas is a warmer who decided to put some propaganda out and got busted? Or, was it an honest mistake?

co2insanity

Times Atlas Apologizes for Global-Warming Error

Published September 20, 2011


The latest "Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World" shows Greenland with 15 percent less ice cover between 1999 (left) and 2011 (right).

Climate-gate, Himalaya-gate, and now … Atlas-gate?

Publishers of the Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World scrambled Tuesday to correct a controversial statement that Greenland had lost 15 percent of its permanent ice cover over the last 12 years -- an assertion scientists labeled "incorrect and misleading."

The claim came in a HarperCollins press release on the publication of the 13th edition of the atlas, stating that global warming was "turning Greenland 'green.'" The gradual melting was also depicted in the atlas itself, as cartographers carved out huge chunks of ice to reflect the apparent results of a warming planet.

That was a mistake, scientists say.

| FoxNews.com
FOX

[zonbron]

De blog van Nature.com is niet mals voor Al Gore

Invited guests weigh in on Al Gore's Climate Reality Project - September 16, 2011

Former US Vice President and global warming ambassador Al Gore wrapped up his 24 hours of reality in New York this evening. The final presentation, much like the 23 that preceded it, sought to reinforce the link between extreme weather and global warming in order to make the case that greenhouse gases are not a distant and amorphous threat to our grandchildren but a clear and present danger to pretty much everybody on the planet.

The question we at Nature and many others are asking is whether the event will have an impact. What was the goal? To convert hard-core sceptics or inform viewers who have honest doubts and are simply seeking good information upon which to base an opinion? Did Gore overstate the certainty of the science? Although it's true that scientists are increasingly talking about extreme weather in the context of climate, that does not mean that all extreme weather can be attributed to climate (as noted here) nor that all scientists are on board with the idea.

...

blogs.nature.com

[zonbron]

50 klimaatexperten betrappen de Washington Post op Warming leugens.
Hier zijn ze...

Fifty Climate Experts Catch Washington Post in Global Warming Lies

By: John O’Sullivan

Mainstream media mouthpiece left shamefaced as fifty international climate experts break ranks to defy global warming cult and denounce junk science.

Washington Post op-ed writer Richard Cohen was last week caught lying while bad mouthing Texas governor, Rick Perry’s presidential candidacy. Cohen, who would have his readers believe humans are dangerously warming the planet, jumped the shark to attack skeptic Perry over his stance on the man-made global warming issue (AGW). Cohen spouted the kooky claim that skeptic scientists “could hold their annual meeting in a phone booth, if there are any left.“

Sadly for Cohen the facts below prove he is just another mendacious mainstream propagandist of climate alarmism.

For instance, the shocking truth is that all 5 official data sets show global cooling since 2002 while a third of all stations sustain a long term cooling trend for their entire history.

Indeed, so infuriated over the blatant lies is Nobel Prize winning physicist, Dr. Ivar Giaever, that last week he resigned in disgust from the American Physics Society for their part in sustaining the now utterly debunked AGW propaganda.

The physics professor who scooped the Nobel Science Prize in 1973 sagely notes, “It is amazing how stable temperature has been over the last 150 years.”

Professor Giaever and the rank and file of scientists are increasingly aware that the ‘consensus’ Cohen and his collaborators alludes to is little more than 77 of 10,000 scientists polled.

Surge in Government Climate Experts Going Skeptic

To further llustrate just how off base Cohen’s spin really is just observe the increasing number of experts who actually worked for the IPCC as contributors / editors / reviewers now turning against global warming junk science. (Hat Tip: The Galileo Movement).

Below, for Cohen and those other mainstream media deniers of climate realism, is a list of just 50 former IPCC experts whose voices your prejudiced ears refuse to hear:

1. Dr Robert Balling: “The IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” (This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers).

2. Dr. Lucka Bogataj: “Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don’t cause global temperatures to rise…. temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed.”

3. Dr John Christy: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report.”

4. Dr Rosa Compagnucci: “Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate.”

5. Dr Richard Courtney: “The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong.”

6. Dr Judith Curry: “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don’t have confidence in the process.”

7. Dr Robert Davis: “Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers.”

8. Dr Willem de Lange: “In 1996, the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3,000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernable human influence on climate. I didn’t. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities.”

9. Dr Chris de Freitas: “Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the longstanding claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’ and predictions of computer models.”

10. Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: “Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.”

11. Dr Peter Dietze: “Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake.”

12. Dr John Everett: “It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios.”

13. Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”

14. Dr Lee Gerhard: “I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) concept until the furor started after [NASA's James] Hansen’s wild claims in the late 1980′s. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting at first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false.”

15. Dr Indur Goklany: “Climate change is unlikely to be the world’s most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk.”

16. Dr Vincent Gray: “The (IPCC) climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”

17. Dr Kenneth Green: “We can expect the climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority.”

18. Dr Mike Hulme: “Claims such as ’2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous … The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen.”

19. Dr Kiminori Itoh: “There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful. When people know what the truth is they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”

20. Dr Yuri Izrael: “There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate.”

21. Dr Steven Japar: “Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them.”

22. Dr Georg Kaser: “This number (of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC) is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude … It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing,”

23. Dr Aynsley Kellow: “I’m not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.”

24. Dr Madhav Khandekar: “I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence.”

25. Dr Hans Labohm: “The alarmist passages in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring.”

26. Dr. Andrew Lacis: “There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department.”

27. Dr Chris Landsea: “I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

28. Dr Richard Lindzen: “The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance.”

29. Dr Harry Lins: “Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated.”

30. Dr Philip Lloyd: “I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.”

31. Dr Martin Manning: “Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors.”

32. Stephen McIntyre: “The many references in the popular media to a “consensus of thousands of scientists” are both a great exaggeration and also misleading.”

33. Dr Patrick Michaels: “The rates of warming, on multiple time scales have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled.”

34. Dr Nils-Axel Morner: “If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere.”

35. Dr Johannes Oerlemans: “The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine.”

36. Dr Roger Pielke: “All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not as a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system.”

37. Dr Jan Pretel: “It’s nonsense to drastically reduce emissions … predicting about the distant future-100 years can’t be predicted due to uncertainties.”

38. Dr Paul Reiter: “As far as the science being ‘settled,’ I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists.”

39. Dr Murray Salby: “I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever someone says the “science is settled. Anyone who thinks the science is settled on this topic is in fantasia.”

40. Dr Tom Segalstad: “The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data.”

41. Dr Fred Singer: “Isn’t it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even the existence of satellites–probably because the data show a (slight) cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction to the calculations from climate models?”

42. Dr Hajo Smit: “There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between human CO2 emissions and climate change.”

43. Dr Roy Spencer: “The IPCC is not a scientific organization and was formed to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Claims of human-cause global warming are only a means to that goal.”

44. Dr Richard Tol: “The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices.”

45. Dr Tom Tripp: “There is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made.”

46. Dr Robert Watson: “The (IPCC) mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened.”

47. Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: “Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis.”

48. Dr David Wojick: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”

49. Dr Miklos Zagoni: “I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong.”

50. Dr. Eduardo Zorita: “Editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. By writing these lines… a few of my future studies will not see the light of publication.”Fifty Climate Experts Catch Washington Post in Global Warming Lies

co2insanity

[brother paul]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door zonbron

Mijn mening is dat het in de atmosfeer/stratosfeer brengen van aerosols met als doel klimaatmanipulatie een uitermate onverantwoorde zaak is die meer rampen dan voordelen (zullen) teweegbrengen. Dit enkel en alleen al vanwege het potentieel gevaar om het normale aardse weermodel onherroepelijk te modificeren.

ik denk eerlijk gezegd als je daar zo een paar ton water zit te sprayen boven de zee, en zo de aarde 1°
C zit af te koelen, dat je inderdaad wel best met de beste klimaatmodellen zit te simuleren wat de impact is van die activiteit, en vanaf je ziet dat die impact negatiever dan positief is moet je zeker stoppen.

Anderzijds denk ik toch dat het zin heeft boven de zone van de sahara bvb dat water te sprayen zodat je bvb al die woestijnzone zit om te vormen naar een bebouwbaar landbouwgebied bvb ipv die gigantische grote zandbak. DUs ergens is er wel plaats genoeg in de wereld voor zo'n experimenten, en kunnen we ons veroorloven om dat te proberen met een win win situatie als gevolg

[zonbron]

Klimaatmodellen zijn nog steeds niet betrouwbaar vanwege het ontbreken van vele factoren, sommige variabelen zijn dan ook nog steeds volledig onvoorspelbaar en het feit dat heden deze zaken eerder een politiek (leugens) dan een wetenschappelijk karakter hebben komt deze praktijken niet ten goede.

Verder merk ik op dan men ook andere zaken dan simpelweg water in de atmosfeer wil brengen(brengt).

Mr. Gaddafi heeft een groot netwerk van ondergrondse rivieren opgezet in Libie. Dat men eerst daar maar eens iets mee begint.

Verder heb ik niets tegen wetenschappelijk onderzoek, zolang dat op een verantwoorde wijze gebeurt.

Die win win situatie zie ik in de nabije toestand nog niet ontstaan.

Men begrijpt nog maar pas iets meer over de invloed van de zon op ons klimaat (zie artikel CERN en het CLOUD project).

Inderdaad, no pain no gain ($) denken sommigen...

Laat ons de structuur/evenwicht niet onnodig in chaos brengen.

[zonbron]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door zonbron

Correctie
Die win win situatie zie ik in de nabije toekomst nog niet ontstaan.

@brother paul, bedankt voor Uw eerste post in deze draad en Welkom.

[brother paul]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door zonbron

Klimaatmodellen zijn nog steeds niet betrouwbaar vanwege het ontbreken van vele factoren, sommige variabelen zijn dan ook nog steeds volledig onvoorspelbaar en het feit dat heden deze zaken eerder een politiek (leugens) dan een wetenschappelijk karakter hebben komt deze praktijken niet ten goede.

Verder merk ik op dan men ook andere zaken dan simpelweg water in de atmosfeer wil brengen(brengt).

Mr. Gaddafi heeft een groot netwerk van ondergrondse rivieren opgezet in Libie. Dat men eerst daar maar eens iets mee begint.

Verder heb ik niets tegen wetenschappelijk onderzoek, zolang dat op een verantwoorde wijze gebeurt.

Die win win situatie zie ik in de nabije toestand nog niet ontstaan.

Men begrijpt nog maar pas iets meer over de invloed van de zon op ons klimaat (zie artikel CERN en het CLOUD project).

Inderdaad, no pain no gain ($) denken sommigen...

Laat ons de structuur/evenwicht niet onnodig in chaos brengen.

je moet nu wel de achillespees van de klimaatmodellen gaan blootleggen, want uiteindelijk is de voorspelling van de opwarming van de aarde en de daaraan gekoppelde stijging van de zeespiegel daarop gebaseerd ? Je schiet zo in uw eigen voet.

Als de aarde opwarmt door ontbossing bvb, dan kan het zeker niet kwaad dat men probeert zoveel mogelijk woestijngebieden terug te bebossen, ik denk dat je daar ook kunt over akkoord zijn.

En gezien het allemal nog maar experimenten zijn, en die wilde gedachtengangen op zichzelf nooit rendabel gaan zijn en afhankelijk van subsidies, denk ik dat je u niet veel zorgen moet maken, ze zullen nooit budget genoeg krijgen om hun wilde dromen te realiseren.

[zonbron]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door brother paul

je moet nu wel de achillespees van de klimaatmodellen gaan blootleggen, want uiteindelijk is de voorspelling van de opwarming van de aarde en de daaraan gekoppelde stijging van de zeespiegel daarop gebaseerd ? Je schiet zo in uw eigen voet.

Dat is niet het punt, het thema is hoe men deze onvoorspelbare/minimaliseerbare effecten tracht te bestrijden.
De meeste 'oplossingen' hebben een potentiaal om meer schade te veroorzaken dan de 'zogenaamde kwaal' zelf. (IMHO)

Hoe denkt men trouwens, iets zo complex als het klimaat, te kunnen controleren zonder alle variabelen te kennen die nodig zijn voor een betrouwbaar klimaatmodel ? Tja, met experimenteren kan men er misschien wel een paar nieuwe blootleggen.

Als de aarde opwarmt door ontbossing bvb, dan kan het zeker niet kwaad dat men probeert zoveel mogelijk woestijngebieden terug te bebossen, ik denk dat je daar ook kunt over akkoord zijn.

Als dat woestijngebieden of andere plekken zijn die tot niets dienen waar sinds kort nog bomen stonden,

Zoniet heb ik daar toch vragen bij, een overdreven terraforming schat ik niet voordelig in. Maar daar zijn meer studies voor nodig.

Trouwens waarom niet Europa herbebossen ? Ook de minder 'rijke' opkomende landen hebben hetzelfde recht op vooruitgang en een (CO2?)ticket tot deelnemen aan de internationale economie.

En gezien het allemal nog maar experimenten zijn, en die wilde gedachtengangen op zichzelf nooit rendabel gaan zijn en afhankelijk van subsidies, denk ik dat je u niet veel zorgen moet maken, ze zullen nooit budget genoeg krijgen om hun wilde dromen te realiseren.

Laat ons hopen dat je hier de nagel op de kop slaagt. Ikzelf heb al bepaalde experimenten in actie gezien (MCB) en dat was niet van de poes. Zoals ik reeds schreef ben ik niet tegen verantwoordelijk wetenschappelijk onderzoek, als we de resultaten ervan eventueel in een nabije toekomst kunnen gebruiken voor eender welke bedreigende situatie.

Verder valt er in vele papers te lezen dat ze vele van hun wilde dromen uiteindelijk toch niet zo duur vinden.

Zeker als we zien dat in naam van de klimaatreligie grote landbouwgebieden worden opgeofferd voor het planten van gewassen die dienen voor de productie van ecofuel, dit in tijden waar de voedselprijzen ongeziene hoogtes bereiken en hongersnood op vele plaatsen schering en inslag is.

Volgende nieuwe informatie is ook veelzeggend. De (arme) mens moet plaats ruimen om het klimaat en moeder aarde te redden... en voor de CO2-handel (Big $$$$$).

BTW, de klimaathysterie en de daaraan gekoppelde CO2-handel is zelfbedruipend zoniet de meest lucratieve handel die de mens(=corporatieve wereld) tot nu toe bedacht heeft. ( lucht=geld )

In Scramble for Land, Group Says, Company Pushed Ugandans Out

More than 20,000 people were expelled from their homes, a report says.
By JOSH KRON
Published: September 21, 2011

KICUCULA, Uganda — According to the company’s proposal to join a United Nations clean-air program, the settlers living in this area left in a “peaceful” and “voluntary” manner.


An evicted woman showed proof of her family's land ownership.



In Uganda, Losing Land to Planted Trees

People here remember it quite differently.

“I heard people being beaten, so I ran outside,” said Emmanuel Cyicyima, 33. “The houses were being burnt down.”

Other villagers described gun-toting soldiers and an 8-year-old child burning to death when his home was set ablaze by security officers.

“They said if we hesitated they would shoot us,” said William Bakeshisha, adding that he hid in his coffee plantation, watching his house burn down. “Smoke and fire.”

According to a report released by the aid group Oxfam on Wednesday, the Ugandan government and a British forestry company forcibly expelled more than 20,000 people from their homes here in recent years, emblematic of a global scramble for arable land.

“Too many investments have resulted in dispossession, deception, violation of human rights and destruction of livelihoods,” Oxfam said in the report. “This interest in land is not something that will pass.” As population and urbanization soar, it added, “whatever land there is will surely be prized.”

Across Africa, some of the world’s poorest people have been thrown off land to make way for foreign investors, often uprooting local farmers so that food can be grown on a commercial scale and shipped to richer countries overseas.

But in this case, the government and the company said the settlers were illegal and evicted for a good cause: to protect the environment and help fight global warming.

The case twists around an emerging multibillion-dollar market trading carbon-credits under the Kyoto Protocol, which contains mechanisms for outsourcing environmental protection to developing nations.

The company involved, New Forests Company, grows forests in African countries with the purpose of selling credits from the carbon-dioxide its trees soak up to polluters abroad. Its investors include the World Bank, through its private investment arm, and the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, HSBC.

In 2005, the Ugandan government granted New Forests a 50-year license to grow pine and eucalyptus forests in three districts, and the company has applied to the United Nations to trade under the mechanism. The company expects that it could earn up to $1.8 million a year.

But there was just one problem: people were living on the land where the company wanted to plant trees. Indeed, they had been there a while.

“He was a policeman for King George,” Mr. Bakeshisha said of his father, who served with British forces during World War II in Egypt.

Mr. Bakeshisha, 51, said he was given land in Namwasa forest in Mubende district in 1997 by a local kingdom through his father’s serviceman association. Mr. Bakeshisha lived happily on the property for years, becoming a local administrator and ardent supporter of President Yoweri Museveni. In a neighboring district, people had been living on land the company would later license since the 1970s.

Tensions brewed. The company and government said the residents were living illegally in a forest. Residents said they had rights. Community members took the company to court in 2009 and a temporary injunction was issued, barring evictions. Nevertheless, Oxfam and residents say, evictions continued.

Residents were given until Feb. 28, 2010, to vacate company premises while soldiers and the police kept surveillance. Company officials visited, too. From time to time a house would be burnt down, villagers said. Then came Feb. 28, a Sunday.

“We were in church,” recalled Jean-Marie Tushabe, 26, a father of two. “I heard bullets being shot into the air.”

“Cars were coming with police,” Mr. Tushabe said, sitting among the ruins of his old home. “They headed straight to the houses. They took our plates, cups, mattresses, bed, pillows. Then we saw them getting a matchbox out of their pockets.”

Homeless and hopeless, Mr. Tushabe said he took a job with the company that pushed him out. He was promised more than $100 each month, he said, but received only about $30.

New Forests says that it takes accusations that settlers were forcibly removed “extremely seriously” and will conduct “an immediate and thorough” investigation.

“Our understanding of these resettlements is that they were legal, voluntary and peaceful and our first hand observations of them confirmed this,” the company said in a response to the Oxfam report.

A Ugandan government spokesman said residents in Namwasa were illegal encroachers, but he acknowledged and deplored the use of violence to remove them, saying it was done by corrupt politicians and police officers operating outside the law.

Olivia Mukamperezida, 28, said her house was among the first in her community to be burned down. One day in late 2009, she said, her eldest son, Friday, was sick at home, so she went out to find medicine. Villagers suddenly told her to rush back. Everything was incinerated.

“I found my house when it was completely finished,” she said. “I just cried.”

Ms. Mukamperezida never found the culprits. She buried Friday’s bones in a grave, but says she does not know if it is still there.

“They are planting trees,” she said.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: September 22, 2011

A previous version of this article misstated the name of HSBC, a global banking and financial services organization.

nytimes

Meer...

Ugandan farmer: 'My land gave me everything. Now I'm one of the poorest'

Land tenure in Uganda is a subject of much dispute, and last year's farming evictions have left 20,000 homeless
guardian

Poor Haitians Resort to Eating Dirt
It was lunchtime in one of Haiti's worst slums, and Charlene Dumas was eating mud.

With food prices rising, Haiti's poorest can't afford even a daily plate of rice, and some must take desperate measures to fill their bellies.
...
Food Prices Up

Food prices around the world have spiked because of higher oil prices, needed for fertilizer, irrigation, and transportation. Prices for basic ingredients such as corn and wheat are also up sharply, and the increasing global demand for biofuels is pressuring food markets as well.
...
nationalgeographic

World Bank Chief: Biofuels Boosting Food Prices
npr

The western appetite for biofuels is causing starvation in the poor world
Developing nations are being pushed to grow crops for ethanol, rather than food - all thanks to political expediency
(man-made global warming advocate) George Monbiot
The Guardian
guardian

Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after 'Danish text' leak
Developing countries react furiously to leaked draft agreement that would hand more power to rich nations, sideline the UN's negotiating role and abandon the Kyoto protocol

The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN's role in all future climate change negotiations.

The document is also being interpreted by developing countries as setting unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals.
...
guardian

US to World Bank: Don't fund coal-fired plants
Swati Mathur, TNN Jan 24, 2010, 01.49am IST

NEW DELHI: Close on the heels of the inconclusive end to the Copenhagen Accord, the US government has stepped up pressure on the World Bank not to fund coal-fired power plants in developing countries.

In a letter sent to the World Bank, a copy of which is with TOI, United States Executive Director Whitney Debevoise said, "The Obama Administration believes that the Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) have a potentially critical role to play in the future international framework for climate finance, and, in particular, to assist developing countries in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and strengthening their economies' resilience to climate risks.''
...
timesofindia

Uit COP16 (Cancun PDF-file)besluit:

For this to be possible, industrial, communications and energy infrastructure will need to be expanded and reconfigured. Primary production needs to increase, and the conservation of natural eco systems, their biodiversity and environmental services, land use planning and relocation of settlements in high risk areas, will all need to be given greater impetus.

Dus, in naam van de klimaathysterie zullen gedwongen volksverplaatsingen(ontruimingen/onteigeningen) naar grote supersteden(concentratie) steeds meer plaatsvinden.

Dus toch, maak ik mij over dit en de geoengineering een beetje zorgen.


De mens is blijkbaar een soort van minderwaardig dier geworden ipv een souverein mens, dit alles ten voordele van moeder gaia of betergezegd de corporatieve wereld.

Ondertussen blijft het reële deel van de vervuiling van onze omgeving door het op volle toeren draaiend militair-industrieel complex onverwijld stijgen.

[zonbron]

In 2010 is de zeespiegel wel 6mm gezakt.

Jet Propulsion Lab

[zonbron]

Is de klimaatwetenschap werkelijk 'wetenschap' ?

Can We Really Call Climate Science A Science?

By Paul Roderick Gregory


Soviet Politburo September 8, 1927

“Trotsky: Let us present our platform to the party congress. What are you afraid of?

Stalin: Comrade Trotsky demands equality between the Central Committee and his opposition group. In whose name do you speak so insolently?

Trotsky ally: Why are you trying to hide our platform? What does this say about your courage?

Stalin: We are not prepared to turn the party into a discussion club.”

George Orwell, Animal Farm, Chapter 7

“They had come to a time when no one dared speak his mind, when fierce, growling dogs roamed everywhere, and when you had to watch your comrades torn to pieces after confessing to shocking crimes.”

E-mails from Phil Jones (East Anglia University)

July 8, 2004
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

March 11, 2003
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”

There is no disagreement that the earth’s temperature has always changed over time. There are periods of warming and cooling. It appears we are in a period of warming. The debate between “warmists” and “skeptics” is about whether human Co2 emissions are the cause of warming, whether the relatively small effects of these emissions will compound into larger changes, and, if so, whether, the benefits of remediation outweigh the costs. By “warmists,” I mean Global Warming Alarmists who believe that warming is caused by humans and will have disastrous consequences for humankind if unchecked by remediation, no matter how costly.

The “warmist” consensus view of “climate science” is represented at a popular level by advocates like Al Gore and at the scientific and technical level by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as supported by researchers at East Anglia (Phil Jones) and Penn State (Michael Mann). This panoply of people and organizations is the equivalent of the Central Committee in my Stalin dialog above. “Skeptics” (the equivalent of Trotsky above) are individual scientists and advocates who stake out positions at odds with the IPCC-Central Committee orthodoxy. They are the ones who “dare to speak when fierce growling dogs roam everywhere.”

Three recent events have brought the controversy over climate science back into the news and onto my radar screen:

First, Ivar Giaever, the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, resigned from the American Physical Society over his disagreement with its statement that “the evidence (on warming alarmism) is incontrovertible.” Instead, he writes that the evidence suggests that “the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.”

Second, the editor of Remote Sensing resigned and disassociated himself from a skeptical paper co-authored by University of Alabama Climate Scientist Roy Spencer after an avalanche of criticism by “warmists.” His resignation brings to mind Phil Jones’ threat to “get rid of troublesome editors” (cited above).

Third, the New York Times and other major media are ridiculing Texas Governor Rick Perry for saying that global warming is “not proven.” Their message: Anyone who does not sign on to global warming alarmism is an ignorant hayseed and clearly not presidential material.

What lessons do I, as an economist, draw from these three events?

First: The Giaever story starkly disputes warmist claims of “inconvertible evidence.” Despite the press’s notable silence on such matters, there are a large number of prominent scientists with solid scholarly credentials who disagree with the IPCC-Central Committee. Those who claim “proven science” and “consensus” conveniently ignore such scientists.

With his public resignation, Nobel Laureate Giaever joins a long list of distinguished “skeptics,” which includes Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT and member of the National Academy of Sciences, Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, William Happer, physicist, Princeton University, Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada, and Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia (just to name a few from a long list).

Second: As someone with forty years experience with peer reviewed journals. I can testify that the Remote Sensing editor’s resignation and public discreditation of Spencer’s skeptical paper would be considered bizarre and unprofessional behavior in any other scholarly discipline.

...

I do not know whether the warmists or skeptics are right. I do know that the modeling of the climate is among the most complex of scientific tasks. In this regard, climate science and economics have much in common. We both must try to understand complicated systems with intricate feedbacks and uncertain causality. As recent experience shows, we economists have yet to find “incontrovertible truth.” We will never reach a consensus. Nor should we. Why should we expect climate science, unlike other disciplines, to reach a consensus when we do not expect this of other fields of scientific inquiry.

About a year ago, I attended a debate between a noted warmist and skeptic. They agreed only on one thing: Climate science is in its infancy. We are just beginning to understand the climate. When we look back, we will understand how little we really understood and how wrong our first findings were. This is the way science is created.

False claims of consensus and inconvertible truth reveal a political or ideological agenda wrapped in the guise of science. The incontrovertible bad behavior of the warmists has led skeptics to suspect base motives, and who could blame them?
Lees meer:
FORBES