Category Archives: Klimatet


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.


Oklart om de fossila bränslena kommer att ta slut!

Länge har det alarmistiska budskapet predikats att de fossila bränslena, olja och kol, en dag kommer att ta slut. Dessa kvantiteter är ändliga, har det hetat från domedagsprofeterna. Men Gösta Walin, professor emeritus i oceanografi vid Göteborgs universitet, berättar för oss i en artikel på Newsmill att det inte med nödvändighet är så:

Förmodligen kommer man i framtiden att finna möjligheter att berika atmosfären med koldioxid på andra sätt när eller om förbränningen av fossila bränslen blir avsevärt lägre.

(Min emfas.)

Ja, han säger också ”berika atmosfären med koldioxid”, ty Walin tillhör de klimatskeptiker som ser koldioxid som självaste livets gas; ju mer desto bättre.

Antydningen om oändlig tillgång till fossila bränslen är fullt logisk utifrån det resonemang som Walin för i artikeln, som är ungefär: det har hittils bara blivit bättre här på jorden, och varje gång tidigare då någon har varnat för att något dåligt ska hända, så har det inte hänt, och därmed kommer det bara att fortsätta bli bättre. ”Klimathotsalarmismen” är därmed a priori falsk.

Klimathot kontra peak oil

Jag chattade på med Markku Rummukainen (om man nu kan kalla det för en ”chatt”, mer av en Q&A-session i realtid).

Jag: Hej Caroline och Markku! Min fråga: Räcker de fossila bränslena till de katastrofala konsekvenser som IPCC förutspår? Jag undrar efter att ha läst en debattartikel av Kjell Aleklett i DN. Vilket kommer att begränsa utsläppen av koldioxid mer: ett eventuellt beslut i Köpenhamn eller de faktiska tillgångarna på olja och kol? Tack på förhand, Otto

Markku Rummukainen: IPCC räknar på olika möjliga framtida klimatförändringar. En del utfall kan kallas ”dramatiska” medan andra snarare som ”väsentliga”. (Valet av ord förstås beror på vem/vad som betraktas.) Det finns en hel del fossila bränslen kvar att ta upp. Det finns olika studier (bl a Alekletts) och de flesta pekar på att det knappast är tillgången (speciellt kol) som begränsar utsläppen under detta århundrade. Olja och även naturgas räcker mindre långt, och tekniken och priset påverkar hur mycket av det som finns kommer att användas. Kolla t ex IEA:s (International Energy Agency) uppskattningar.

Det här var debattartikeln jag avsåg.