Globale Erwärmung durch Treibhauseffekt - nur ein Mythos der Linken? (Seite 5786)

[Kaperfahrer]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 25.374.619 von rv_2011 am 14.11.06 00:14:53

Dass aber der CO2-Gehalt der Atmosphäre der höchste ist seit Millionen Jahren - das lässt sich nachweisen. Und der humanogene Anteil daran lässt sich exakt beziffern. Zumindest qualitativ ist der Zusammenhang zwischen Temperaturentwicklung und CO2-Gehalt naturhistorisch nachweisbar; den dahinterstehenden Mechanismus verstehen wir auch immer besser. Dass die Durchschnittstemperaturen in der Atmosphere und (was noch wichtiger ist, im Meer) in den letzten 100 Jahren deutlich gestiegen sind, ist messbar und wird gut durch die Treibhaus-Modelle beschrieben.

Wenn du dieser Überzeugung bist und ich konzediere, dass einiges dafür spricht, dann verstehe ich aber andererseits die Verweigerung der Atomkraft nicht, die als einzige in der Lage ist, in absehbarer Zeit, die weltweit dringend benötigten Energien in ausreichenden Maße zur Verfügung zu stellen, ohne die Atmosphäre und somit das Klima weiter zu belasten. Das ist ein klassisches "sich in die Ecke malen".
Mit allen anderen Verkokeln von fossilen und/oder anderen organischen Brennstoffen(Gas, Öl, Kohle, Bio-Scheiß) lügt man sich doch in die eigene Tasche.
Wind, Geothermie u.Ä. die als Nischenprodukte unbestritten Sinn machen, oder gar, wirtschaftsschädliche und gerade den "kleinen Mann" in seinem bescheidenen Wohlstand hart treffende extreme Sparmaßnahmen werden niemals ausreichen, den erhöhten Energiebedarf den die Zukunft weltweit bringt, auch nur annähernd abzufedern. Keine sozialistische Umverteilungsmaßnahme, zu der ich auch den idiotischen Emissionshandel (Stichwort: Kyotoprotokoll) zähle, wird das auch nur ansatzweise ändern können. Das sind statistische Taschenspielereien.
Und dass wir in Deutschland uns von dem lokal abkoppeln können, ohne dabei wirtschaftlich vor die Hunde zu gehen, kann man getrost ins Reich der Märchen verbannen. Das ist Selbstmord, aus Angst vor dem Tod.

[mouse_potato]

# 194 rv,

nein, als qualifizierter "Klimaforscher" gilt nur wer den Konsens nachplappert.

Aber schon heftig wie die UN manipuliert, trickst und täuscht um sich Katastrophen zurechtzurechnen. Dieses spielen mit der Angst der Leute ist unwissenschaftlich und unseriös. Voraussagen der "Klimaforscher" treffen regelmässig nicht ein, ich würde mir auf dieser Seite etwas mehr Qualifikation wünschen.

[rv_2011]

#192, #193

Hat Christopher Monckton irgend eine Qualifikation als Klimaforscher?

Meines Wissens war seine größte wissenschaftliche Leistung die Konstruktion eines besonders schwierigen Puzzles, das aber doch sehr viel schneller gelöst wurde als gedacht: Für das Preisgeld musste Monckton seine Villa verkaufen.

[urlIn November 2006 two articles written by him criticising the traditional view of global warming were published in the Sunday Telegraph. His executive summary states his own set of criteria that would need to be met in order for global warming to be true, most of which are unusual in terms of scientific practice, such as a criterion of consensus, which Monckton defines as universal acceptance. Although Monckton's contribution has not received serious scientific review, there has been harsh criticism of the accuracy of some of the claims that he made in his articles.]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley#Global_warming[/url]

[spicault]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 25.367.342 von spicault am 13.11.06 20:22:38

APOCALYPSE CANCELLED

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/warm-ref…

[spicault]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 25.321.331 von CaptainFutures am 12.11.06 11:18:43

The sun is warmer now than for the past 11,400 years
By Christopher Monckton, Sunday Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11…


Wrong problem, wrong solution
By Christopher Monckton, Sunday Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11…

Sehe auch Leserbriefe!!

[CaptainFutures]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 25.321.080 von mouse_potato am 12.11.06 11:11:25

[mouse_potato]

Was geht eigentlich beim Mega-Event der Klimagemeinde in Kenia? Man hört gar nix ausser dass alle das Geld der "Anpassungsfonds" wollen. Ich rechne aber schon noch mit Katastrophenvoraussagen und Horrorszenarien, das wäre ja ganz was neues wenn der Klima-Hokuspokus ohne Weltuntergangs-Szenario auskäme.

[spicault]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 25.031.355 von cajadeahorros am 31.10.06 10:56:26

November 8, 2006
Reason’s unlikely recruit

A report in CO2 Science says the Anatarctic ice sheet us actually expanding:

"Reference
Wingham, D.J., Shepherd, A., Muir, A. and Marshall, G.J. 2006. Mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 364: 1627-1635.
What was done
The authors “analyzed 1.2 x 108 European remote sensing satellite altimeter echoes to determine the changes in volume of the Antarctic ice sheet from 1992 to 2003.” This survey, in their words, “covers 85% of the East Antarctic ice sheet and 51% of the West Antarctic ice sheet,” which together comprise “72% of the grounded ice sheet.”"
What was learned
Wingham et al. report that “overall, the data, corrected for isostatic rebound, show the ice sheet growing at 5 ± 1 mm year-1.” To calculate the ice sheet’s change in mass, however, “requires knowledge of the density at which the volume changes have occurred,” and when the researchers’ best estimates of regional differences in this parameter are used, they find that “72% of the Antarctic ice sheet is gaining 27 ± 29 Gt year-1, a sink of ocean mass sufficient to lower [authors’ italics] global sea levels by 0.08 mm year-1.” This net extraction of water from the global ocean, according to Wingham et al., occurs because “mass gains from accumulating snow, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and within East Antarctica, exceed the ice dynamic mass loss from West Antarctica.”
What it means
Contrary to all the horror stories one hears about global warming-induced mass wastage of the Antarctic ice sheet leading to rising sea levels that gobble up coastal lowlands worldwide, the most recent decade of pertinent real-world data suggest that forces leading to just the opposite effect are apparently prevailing, even in the face of what climate alarmists typically describe as the greatest warming of the world in the past two millennia or more."

The mismatch between what the science actually tells us and what campaigners tell us the science tells us has become so extreme that the climate change lobby itself is starting to crack apart. One of its gurus, Mike Hulme, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, has turned on his own side and denounced the current hysteria over global warming (singling out the Independent newspaper by name) as manipulation and group-think:

"Climate change is a reality, and science confirms that human activities are heavily implicated in this change. But over the last few years a new environmental phenomenon has been constructed in this country - the phenomenon of ‘caastrophic’ climate change. It seems that mere ‘climate change’ was not going to be bad enough, and so now it must be ‘catastrophic’ to be worthy of attention. The increasing use of this pejorative term - and its bedfellow qualifiers ‘chaotic’, ‘irreversible’, ‘rapid’ - has altered the public discourse around climate change. This discourse is now characterised by phrases such as ‘climate change is worse than we thought’, that we are approaching ‘irreversible tipping in the Earth’s climate’, and that we are ‘at the point of no return’.

I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric… What has pushed the debate between climate change scientists and climate sceptics to now being between climate change scientists and climate alarmists? I believe there are three factors now at work.

First, the discourse of catastrophe is a campaigning device being mobilised in the context of failing UK and Kyoto Protocol targets to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. The signatories to this UN protocol will not deliver on their obligations. This bursting of the campaigning bubble requires a determined reaction to raise the stakes - the language of climate catastrophe nicely fits the bill. Hence we now have the militancy of the Stop Climate Chaos activists and the megaphone journalism of the Independent newspaper, with supporting rhetoric from the prime minister and senior government scientists.

Others suggest that the sleeping giants of the Gaian Earth system are being roused from their millennia of slumber to wreck havoc on humanity. Second, the discourse of catastrophe is a political and rhetorical device to change the frame of reference for the emerging negotiations around what happens when the Kyoto Protocol runs out after 2012. The Exeter conference of February 2005 on ‘Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change’ served the government’s purposes of softening-up the G8 Gleneagles summit through a frenzied week of ‘climate change is worse than we thought’ news reporting and group-think. By stage-managing the new language of catastrophe, the conference itself became a tipping point in the way that climate change is discussed in public.

Third, the discourse of catastrophe allows some space for the retrenchment of science budgets. It is a short step from claiming these catastrophic risks have physical reality, saliency and are imminent, to implying that one more ‘big push’ of funding will allow science to quantify them objectively. We need to take a deep breath and pause. The language of catastrophe is not the language of science. It will not be visible in next year’s global assessment from the world authority of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). To state that climate change will be ‘catastrophic’ hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions which do not emerge from empirical or theoretical science. Is any amount of climate change catastrophic? Catastrophic for whom, for where, and by when? What index is being used to measure the catastrophe? The language of fear and terror operates as an ever-weakening vehicle for effective communication or inducement for behavioural change."

Is the stage-managed climatic worm finally beginning to turn?

Melanie Phillips

http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1380

[cajadeahorros]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 25.030.837 von mouse_potato am 31.10.06 10:33:49

[InvestigativTrader]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 25.029.379 von PrinzValiumNG am 31.10.06 09:36:38

Unser humorvolle Prinz zeigt sich diesmal von seiner gänzlich stocksteifen Seite.
Passt aber nicht zu deinen sonstigen Ausführungen daß für dich alles Schabernack ist.
Wie du es schon richtig erkannt hast: Erfolg durch Null-Hirn!
Praktizierst du bereits seit langem erfolgreich.