Swedengate

Following the recent storm of scandals and factual errors published in the IPCC reports – Himalayagate, Glaciergate, Amazongate – many find themselves asking whether there is anything left to believe in. The Climategate e-mails proved that these ”researchers” were manipulating data, that they secretly were discussing scientific issues and conspiring to intentionally keep bad research out of the IPCC. Here I will present further evidence for the final nail in the coffin of the trainwreck that is IPCC, and I’m sure more will come.

On page 555 of the AR4:s Working Group II report, we find the following curious information:

Projections for a range of SRES scenarios show a 30 to 50% increase in the area suitable for grain maize production in Europe by the end of the 21st century, including Ireland, Scotland, southern Sweden and Finland (Hildén et al., 2005; Olesen et al., 2007).

Well, that’s interesting. So while the IPCC predicts imminent disaster for the globe as a whole, we are led to believe that Sweden – a small, socialist country located safely above sealevel way up in the Alps – would somehow not be drowned in water; rather, it will turn into an agricultural paradise, where maize – the stuff you make popcorn out of – will be grown.

This should raise a few eyebrows for the skeptical reader. For one thing, it tells us something about the non-falsifyability of the global warming theory. If it’s bad, it’s because of global warming. If it’s good, it’s also because of global warming! If Karl Popper was alive, he’d point out that this in itself proves that global warming is false.

But there’s more in it. For those of you who know the history of the IPCC, you’ll know about its ”founding father” and chief ideologist – Swedish weather man Bert Bolin. Coincidence? I think not.

Let’s look at the sources for this dubious claim. As should come as no surprise by now, Hildén et al refers to a so-called work of ”gray literature”, which means it’s written by activists, not scientists. Such reports provide no scientific value at all. It’s a report by activist organisation Finnish Environment Institute, called ”The practice and process of adaption in Finnish agriculture”. Note that ”adaptation” refers to adapting to the climate changes that they a priori are accepting to be true – just like the IPCC, these ”scientists” are not assessing whether or not climate change is true; they have already decided upon ”the science is settled” and are now just trying to make the case.

But as skeptics, we have to ask ourselves: Why? Why would they lie to us? As many have pointed out, scientists will stretch the truth to great lengths in order to find the results that the governments are asking for – that global warming is happening – so that they can get grant money. Because governments want global warming so that they have something to scare their voters with: Vote for us, or you’ll burn in climate hell!

So, what then does Hildén et al. say? Let’s look at the abstract. I find this bit particularily interesting:

The challenge for agricultural policies is to adapt not only to climate change as such, but in particular to various forms of spontaneous adaptation that will occur within the agricultural sector. Adaptation also creates needs for new research. Research can support adaptation by demonstrating how agricultural and other policies create incentives or disincentives for innovative adaptation.

Well, what a surprise! Let’s create needs for more research.

Some people will say, ”well that’s a conspiracy theory” – inherently a straw man argument designed to equal climate change skepticism to the 911 truth movement, creationism and pretty much anything. Nobody ever claimed there was a ”conspiracy”.

But the facts we have uncovered here point to the simple truth that Bert Bolin created global warming so that he could grow popcorn in Sweden. That’s how ridiculous this is.

I’m not saying the  denialists are right, but these matters need to be investigated further. Policy makers! Get the facts straight before taking action. Mainstream media! Take your job seriously. Scientists! Stop being defensive of your work and admit, like Phil Jones recently did in a brutally honest BBC interview, that all the evidence for Mann-made Global Warming is false. Global warming theory is entirely based on the claim of there being no debate on whether Medieval Warming was global in extent or not, which responsible critics have been saying all along.

UPDATE 2010-02-24: Thank you all for the positive comments! More information is being unveiled as we speak. For example, Milanovic points out that alarmist reports of ”forest fires” – frequently reported from ”down under”, i.e. the great continent of Austria, which also happens to be the home of this alarmist website – might also be a falsification stuffed down our throats by Big Media! I don’t know why people keep claiming it’s getting ”warmer”, even reporting ”fires”, when reality shows two things: 1. that we’re rapidly approaching the next ice age, and 2: that we can’t measure temperatures reliably.

16 responses to “Swedengate

  1. Kristian Grönqvist

    Hilarious!

  2. Jag är faktiskt BÅDE skakad och störd.

  3. Tack för länken till detta blogginlägg som du skickade till Uppsalainitiativet. Det gick inte omedelbart fram att inlägget var ironi. Poes lag slog till. Vissa klimatskeptiska artiklar har sådant resomenang, på allvar. Du tror att du driver med dem men du har i princip bara härmat dem!
    (-;

    • Haha, ja jag vet att det är omöjligt. Badlands Hyenas försökte nyligen – jag såg diskussioner på TCS om vad det lämpliga antalet klimatpaneler borde vara för någon vecka sedan. Denial Depot lyckas bra.

      Jag kände inte till Poes lag; jag hade kanske bort skruva till vissa av argumenten ytterligare, men jag tycker samtidigt att det är lite kul att ta med argument som redan är oöverträffeligt snurriga. Om man är riktigt duktig så gör man som Tina Fey och upprepar ett helt Sarah Palin-intervjusvar ordagrannt.

      Tack för Uppsalainitiativet – för något år sedan hade jag kanske inte med samma säkerhet sagt ”ni behövs”, men nu är det tyvärr smärtsamt uppenbart.😦

  4. Excellent write-up. I can hear the IPCC’s death knell loud and clear.

    ”Sweden – a small, socialist country located safely above sealevel way up in the Alps”

    Yeah, I absolutely LOVE that famous Swedish cheese.😀

  5. Tack själv, Otto K,
    man visste ju inte hur pass nyttig klimatinfo skulle bli, iom den aktuella stora vågen av klimatskepticism och lobbyism. För att inte glömma det nya verktyget Newsmill, som blivit ett mediavapen. För alla möjliga s k skeptiker, 9/11-skeptiker, nu senast idag Darwinskeptiker, etc…Också en faktor.

    Kollade genast in Tina Fey-youtubelänkar om Sarah Palin! Skickligt med utseendet också!

  6. Wow, this is one of the worst sceptical articles I have read recently! When scientists are warning that global warming could lead to major problems in some parts of the world they are called ”alarmists” by sceptics. When sceptics finally find out that scientists actually also say that global warming can have benefits this should also not be believed. And than the ranting about Karl Popper is hilarious (if it wouldn’t be so sad). As if natural phonemena cannot lead to beneficial and detrimental effects at the same time. Ergo: forest fires cannot occur as it is both detrimental for the forest (on the short term) and advantageous (on the long term).

    No seriously, global warming can definitely be disproven: by proving that CO2 does not act as a green house gas, that temperatures do not rise (on the long timescale!), that the stratosphere is not cooling (as predicted by global warming models) and so on and so on.

    Oh, and please, the comment concerning Phil Jones is simply a lie, he did not say anything like that, see for yourself:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

  7. @obehindrad

    Ah, it appears I was being fooled🙂. I just stumbled at this article and I was amazed, but it was not SO outrageous that I realized it was a parody. Well, it was outrageous, but not more outrageous than what I read regularly on some sceptics websites.

    And thanks for the link to Poe’s law. I didn’t know ”Poe’s law”, but it applied to me!

    • milanovic – I didn’t know about it either, until I wrote this post and a few people pointed out to me that it could be a potential Poe. Some of the ”sceptic” arguments just can’t be parodied. 🙂

      Hmm… I think I’m gonna call the forest fire revelation ”Austriagate”!

  8. @obehindra

    ”Like my last two points in the update 2010-02-24. So obviously self-contradictory, yet I see it all the time.”

    Yep, and that was precisely why I really didn’t notice your post to be a parody. You really didn’t exaggerate!

    I actually found your post via Eli Rabetts website, but I didn’t read the comments there concerning your post. I am actually curious about the Swedish comments, am I the only one who was fooled?

Kommentera

Fyll i dina uppgifter nedan eller klicka på en ikon för att logga in:

WordPress.com Logo

Du kommenterar med ditt WordPress.com-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Twitter-bild

Du kommenterar med ditt Twitter-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Facebook-foto

Du kommenterar med ditt Facebook-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Google+ photo

Du kommenterar med ditt Google+-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Ansluter till %s