Da der øjensynligt har været problemer med adgangen til David Gress’ indlæg, bringer vi det her igen fra redaktionen:
Blandt de adskillige udmærkede og hårdtslående kritikker af den tendentiøse Stern-rapport om global opvarming, som Information skadefro publicerede hovedkonklusionerne af på dansk, glæder denne mig i særlig grad da den skyldes min gamle studiekammerat Chris Monckton.
Et par citater (med indbygget link til tabeller og udregninger):
Sir Nicholas Stern’s report on the economics of climate change, which was published last week, says that the debate is over. It isn’t. There are more greenhouse gases in the air than there were, so the world should warm a bit, but that’s as far as the “consensus” goes. After the recent hysteria, you may not find the truth easy to believe. So you can find all my references and detailed calculations here.
The Royal Society says there’s a worldwide scientific consensus. It brands Apocalypse-deniers as paid lackeys of coal and oil corporations.
The oceans, we’re now told, are acting as a giant heat-sink. In these papers the well-known, central flaw (not mentioned by Stern) is that the computer models’ “predictions” of past ocean temperature changes only approach reality if they are averaged over a depth of at least a mile and a quarter.
Deep-ocean temperature hasn’t changed at all, it’s barely above freezing. The models tend to over-predict the warming of the climate-relevant surface layer up to threefold. A recent paper by John Lyman, of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, reports that the oceans have cooled sharply in the past two years. The computers didn’t predict this. Sea level is scarcely rising faster today than a century ago: an inch every 15 years. Hansen now says that the oceanic “flywheel effect” gives us extra time to act, so Stern’s alarmism is misplaced.
Finally, the UN’s predictions are founded not only on an exaggerated forcing-to-temperature conversion factor justified neither by observation nor by physical law, but also on an excessive rate of increase in airborne carbon dioxide. The true rate is 0.38 per cent year on year since records began in 1958. The models assume 1 per cent per annum, more than two and a half times too high. In 2001, the UN used these and other adjustments to predict a 21st-century temperature increase of 1.5 to 6C. Stern suggests up to 10C.
Und so weiter und so fort. Læs det hele. Vi glæder os til
Next week (hvor Monckton vil) demonstrate the atrocious economic, political and environmental cost of the high-tax, zero-freedom, bureaucratic centralism implicit in Stern’s report; I’ll compare the global-warming scare with previous sci-fi alarums; and I’ll show how the environmentalists’ “precautionary principle” (get the state to interfere now, just in case) is killing people.
Her er iøvrigt Nigel Lawsons demolition af Stern; fyldigere version kommer senere fra Centre for Policy Studies.
Men se om Connie Hedegaard eller den nykonverterede grønne Fogh vil høre efter. Nej, de vil hellere spilde penge og gøre deres hoser grønne (pardon!) hos meningsmagerne.