Klimaalarmisten verweigern sich legitimen wissenschaftlichen Fragen

Ein erhöhter CO2-Gehalt steigert die Produktivität vieler Pflanzen. Das ist bekannt und wird auch durch die neuesten Studie weiter untermauert (siehe z.B. unsere entsprechende Blogbeiträge hier). Dieser positive Umstand gefällt den Anhängern der Klimaapokalypse natürlich gar nicht. Wie könnte man das schöne Ergebnis ins Gegenteil verkehren? Die Europäische Kommission hat es in ihrem Newsletter vom 8. April 2016 doch tatsächlich geschafft. Kurzerhand erhöhte man die heutige CO2-Konzentration um mehr als das zehnfache auf unrealistische 5000 ppm und konnte dann mit gutem Gewissen behaupten: Aber zuviel CO2 ist auch nicht gut! Eine Binsenweisheit. Wie wir alle wissen: Ein paar Löffel Kaviar mit einem Gläschen Champagner sind überaus genüsslich. Ein ganzer Eimer Kaviar hingegen heruntergspült mit drei Liter Champagner verursachen Bauch- und Kopfschmerzen. Die Dosis macht das Gift.

—————-

Judith Curry brachte am 10. April 2016 einige Auszüge eines spannenden Artikels in The American Interest, in dem die kompromisslose Beförderung der Klimakatastrophe scharf kritisiert wird:

Twilight of the Climate Change Movement
[...] While those who flatly deny the possibility of any global warming can be readily brushed aside, the alarmists have been much too quick to dismiss legitimate questions about precisely what the evidence shows. Indeed, they have frequently treated such questions as heresies to be persecuted, adopting an even more virulently anti-scientific mindset than the one they accuse others of. [...]  They are also distracting attention both from investments that would make society less vulnerable to climate change. [...] the movement’s embrace of an absolute form of the precautionary principle distorts rational cost-benefit analysis, or throws it out the window altogether. [...] Strategies that distort rational cost-benefit analysis (or the science on which it is based) to suit an anti-market agenda will not work and can only maintain the illusion of legitimacy for so long before they are discredited.

Die Zuordnung des beobachteten modernen Klimawandels ist die Achillesferse des IPCC:

The “attribution statement” in the IPCC’s latest assessment report is carefully couched: “It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG [greenhouse gases] and other anthropogenic forces together.” The distinction between “more than half” (the IPCC summary’s of scientific literature) and “all” or “nearly all” is crucial from the point of view of public policy. If only about half the observed warming is due to human activity, the cost-benefit analysis of currently proposed policies becomes far more dubious, and reveals another problem: As much as half the current warming trend (whatever that is) could be due to natural causes, and current policies will do nothing to address that.

Ganzen Artikel auf The American Interest lesen.

—————-

Sex und Klimawandel. Wir hatten es geahnt, ein Thema das irgendwann kommen musste. Eine autralische Studie hat nun bahnbrechende neue Ergebnisse gebracht: An besonders heißen Tagen sank die Geburtenrate 9 Monate später um 0,4%! Gefährdet die Klimaerwärmung jetzt sogar den Fortbestand der Menschheit? ABC News berichtete am 15. April 2016:

Sex and climate change
Temperature impacts the sexual patterns of human beings for two reasons, according to Professor Barreca. One reason he gave was that human beings did not want to exert themselves physically in hot weather, due to possible discomfort. The second reason was more scientific. “The effect of temperature on the production of sperm — that’s been shown to be pretty strong in animals,” Professor Barreca said. “When you expose a bull to high temperatures, sperm motility and sperm count fall right off.” He said with the onset of climate change and global warming, the implications could grow. The research found that each hot day reduced birth rates nine months later by 0.4 per cent, which Professor Barreca said could be quite significant.

Ganzen Artikel auf ABC News lesen.

—————-

Hat die Wissenschaft ihre selbstkorrigierenden Mechanismen verloren? Diese These vertreten William Wilson und Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry. Auszug aus The Week vom 18. April 2016:

Science is broken
That’s the thesis of a must-read article in First Things magazine, in which William A. Wilson accumulates evidence that a lot of published research is false. But that’s not even the worst part. Advocates of the existing scientific research paradigm usually smugly declare that while some published conclusions are surely false, the scientific method has “self-correcting mechanisms” that ensure that, eventually, the truth will prevail. Unfortunately for all of us, Wilson makes a convincing argument that those self-correcting mechanisms are broken.

Weiterlesen in The Week

—————-

Der Einfluss solarer Aktiviätsschwankungen auf das irdische Klima ist durch eine große Anzahl von Studien gut belegt. Trotzdem haben es Klimaaktivisten irgendwie geschafft, die Klimawirkung in der IPCC-Klimagleichung nahezu auf Null herunterzufahren, und das obwohl der IPCC selber bis zu 50% natürlichen Klimaeinfluss beim beobachteten Klimawandel einräumt. Eine offensichtliche Diskrepanz, die aber kaum jemanden zu kratzen scheint. Der IPCC sitzt hier auf einer tickenden Zeitbombe. Eine zu geeigneter Zeit an geeigneter Stelle platzierte Frage hierzu könnte das wilde Klimakatstrophengerüst leicht zum Einsturz bringen.

Das ist momentan wohl auch den Anhängern der extremen IPCC-Alarmlinie bewusst. Sie konzentrieren sich daher darauf, abweichlerische Wissenschaftler mundtot zu machen und aus dem Verkehr zu ziehen. Besonders unbequem ist dabei der Harvard-Forscher Willie Soon, der den IPCC wegen der solaren Vernachlässigung offen kritisiert. Aufgrund seiner für den IPCC unbequemen Forschungsbeiträge ist Soon bereits seit längerem von den offiziellen Fördertöpfen abgeschnitten. Soons Wissenschaftsfunding muss daher aus pivaten Drittmitteln kommen. Und genau diese Finanzierung versuchen Aktivisten nun mit verzweifelten Attacken und medialem Mobbing abzuschneiden.

Ron Arnold hat am 20. April 2016 den unglaublichen Vorgang im Blog des Heartland Instituts nacherzählt. Letzte unrühmliche Episode: Plumpe Schmierenartikel der zwei Aktivisten Paul Basken und David Hasemyer. Letzterer scheint üppig mit Rockefeller-Geldern ausgestattet zu sein, ist also Teil der aktuellen großen Anti-Öl-Kampagne der Stiftung. Ron Arnold schreibt auf heartland.org:

A Few Facts For Climate Alarmists Waging War Against Astrophysicist Willie Soon

Dr. Willie Soon is an astrophysicist in the Solar, Stellar and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysicsin Cambridge, Massachusetts. He began as a post-doctoral fellow in 1991 and took his scientist position in 1997. His subsequent career is a textbook example of speaking truth to power and bravery facing the consequences.

Dr. Soon produced an important series of astrophysics papers on the sun-climate connection beginning in 1994 and received positive discussion in the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s second and third assessment reports (1996 and 2001). In that era, the IPCC still admitted uncertainties about human influence, despite green NGO pressure and U.S. State Department insistence on finding a “smoking gun” in weak data. Even Bert Bolin, co-creator and first chairman of the IPCC (1988-1997), deplored the denial of uncertainty he saw rising. In his 2007 History of the Science and Politics of Climate Change (page 112), Bolin wrote, “It was non-governmental groups of environmentalists, supported by the mass media who were the ones exaggerating the conclusions that had been carefully formulated by the IPCC.” In 1997 Bolin went so far as to tell the Associated Press, “Global warming is not something you can ‘prove.’ You try to collect evidence and thereby a picture emerges.”

Dr. Soon’s study of solar influence on climate behavior made him a target for alarmists, but he had defenders. In 2013, the Boston Globe acknowledged his guts and sound science with a quote from iconic science leader, Freeman Dyson: “The whole point of science is to question accepted dogmas. For that reason, I respect Willie Soon as a good scientist and a courageous citizen.”

In February of 2015, Greenpeace agent Kert Davies, a vocal critic since 1997, falsely accused Dr. Soon of wrongfully taking fossil-fuel company grants by failing to disclose “conflicts of interest” to an academic journal. The journal’s editors and the Smithsonian Institution found no violation of their disclosure or conflict of interest rules. However, the Greenpeace accusation caused a clamor around the world as lazy liberal reporters repeated it for major media with no fact-checking for accuracy.

The Greenpeace ruckus brought high-level Obama administration pressure on the Harvard-Smithsonian Center to silence climate skeptics – Vice President Joe Biden is a member of Smithsonian’s Board of Regents. The Institution responded with an elaborate new Directive on Standards of Conduct that forced its employees to wade through bureaucratic rules replete with an Ethics Counselor and a “Loyalty to the Smithsonian” clause of a sort not seen since the McCarthy Red Scare.

The Institution announced an Inspector General investigation of Soon, combing his emails and announcing that he had broken no rules. That seriously stung the NGO-Media-Politician coalition, which launched more attacks.

Ten days apart in the Spring of 2016, two outlets published stories scurrilously demonizing Dr. Soon. Both articles were long on bias and bogus claims but short on facts. The two activist/writers, David Hasemyer of the controversial Rockefeller-funded InsideClimateNews and Paul Basken of the for-profit Delaware corporation, The Chronicle of Higher Education, seem to have forgotten journalistic ethics and the facts.

Basken’s March 25 item, “A Year After a Climate-Change Controversy, Smithsonian and Journals Still Seek Balance on Disclosure Rules,” bemoans the fact that last year’s load of Greenpeace false accusations hadn’t caused the Institution to impose harsh enough rules to get rid of all scientists with climate skeptic views. Any fact checking didn’t show.

Hasemyer’s April 5, 2016 piece, “Smithsonian Gives Nod to More ‘Dark Money’ Funding for Willie Soon,” bewails the fact that Soon’s employer didn’t follow their playbook but approved a $65,000 grant from the non-profit Donors Trust, which is despised by greens because it uses anonymous “donor-advised-funds.” Such “dark money” grants are an IRS-approved shield pioneered decades ago by the far-left Tides Foundation for its $1.1 billion worth of grants to radicals, much of it “dark,” which Hasemyer didn’t seem to recall.

Hasemyer also neglected to note that even if Donors Trust’s “dark” grant came from ExxonMobil Foundation, the fossil-fuel philanthropy also gave universities $64,674,989; museums $2,771,150; the Red Cross $2,549,434; the Conservation Fund, Nature Conservancy and similar groups $1,210,000; Habitat for Humanity $798,000, Ducks Unlimited, $402,000 and many more from 1998 to 2014 according to IRS records. Will they be demonized as shills too?

Weiterlesen auf heartland.org