Seiten: 1 2 3 ... Ende Zurück zur Übersicht
Autor
Thema: Globale Erwärmung — eine andere Perspektive


Hier ein 25-minütiges Video, das ein paar Puzzleteile zusammensetzt, auf die ich beim Studium libertärer Schriften schon öfter gestoßen bin:

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3

Als ehemaliges ÖDP-Mitglied waren diese Informationen für mich schwer zu verdauen, aber nur weil alle Welt von der menschheitsinduzierten Klimakatastrophe spricht, muss diese Theorie nicht richtig sein.
In diesem Faden werde ich weitere kritische Publikationen sammeln.










Zuletzt bearbeitet: 09.07.10 13:33 von Administrator
Werbung


In einem Artikel aus dem Wall Street Journal schreibt A. Lindzen unter anderem:

Alfred P. Lindzen (MIT):
Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.

> Quelle



Hier ein offener Brief von 60 Wissenschaftlern an den kanadischen Premierminister.

Auszug:
[…] We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole story concerning this very complex issue. It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas.

> Quelle



Im Spicyforum gab es einen ähnlichen Faden zu dem Thema. Siehe hier

Auch wenn dieser Faden für ernsthafte Diskussionen gedacht ist, möchte ich Euch noch eine kleine Parodie zu diesem Thema empfehlen. Mr. Bush versucht den Begriff "Global Warming" zu erklären. Ich habe mich köstlich amüsiert.

Bush-Video




Fragwürdiges zur National Academy of Science:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/avery070106.htm



Klimawandel jetzt auch auf dem Mars:
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/weltraum/0,1518,375870,00.html
Da ist sicher auch unser CO2-Ausstoß verantwortlich.



Und hier ist übrigens die Lösung:
http://vhemt.de/



Jedwelche Modellrechnung beim Klima steht auf sehr wackeligen Beinen. Dies hat zwei Gründe.
1) Man braucht für ein Modell sehr viele Annahmen/Vereinfachungen, da dies sonst nicht rechenbar ist.
2) Man hat es mit einem "chaotischen System" zu tun. Chaotisches System bedeutet, dass winzige Änderungen der Anfangsbedingungen ein komplett anderes Ergebnis herbeiführen. Deshalb ist der Wetterbericht trotz überall aufgestellter Meßstationen ab ein paar Tagen Vorhersage selten richtig.

Was ist der Treibhauseffekt/ wie funktioniert das eigentlich? Eher kurzwellige einfallende Strahlung im sichtbaren Bereich kommt mühelos durch mit CO2 verschmutzte Atmosphäre hindurch. Dadurch wird die Erde wärmer. Wäre dies schon das Ende der Geschichte, so würde die Erde immer heißer. Es gibt jedoch einen Effekt der dies kompensiert. Die sogenannte "Schwarzkörperstrahlung". Jeder Körper strahlt abhängig von seiner Temperatur elektromagnetische Strahlung ab. Hierbei für unseren Effekt wichtig ist die Tatsache, dass es sich bei dieser Strahlung um langwellige Infrarotstrahlung handelt. Diese wird von der verschmutzten Atmosphäre nicht so einfach durchgelassen, sondern oft refektiert. Die Energie/Wärme kommt auf die Erde zurück.

Der Effekt, dass tatsächlich jeder warme Körper strahlt (auch wir) ist nicht bzw. nur selten im täglichen Leben bemerkbar, da zwischen der Umgebung und uns ein Gleichgewicht von angestrahlt werden und Abstrahlung besteht. Situationnen wo man dies bemerken kann sind zum Beispiel:
Unfalldecken aus Metallfolie. Hier wird primär dafür gesorgt, dass die Körperstrahlung zurückreflektiert wird. Der Luftpolstereffekt ist so hoch wie bei einer Zeitung.

Man sitzt bei klarem Nachthimmel unterm Sonenschirm und friert weniger. Der Schirm strahlt selbst und reflektiert noch einen Teil der Körperstrahlung.

Momentan gehen die meisten Forschungsgruppen davon aus, dass der Effekt mit der reflektierten Infrarotabstrahlung für die globale Erwämung verantwortlich ist. Ich hab auch Graphen gesehen, die die CO 2 Konzentrationen und Temperaturen während der letzten 50 Jahren zeigten. Die Ähnlichkeit war so frappierend, das höchstens der irakische Informationsmisnister diese hätte leugnen können. Mir ist auch nicht aufgefallen, dass an der Skala gemogelt worden wäre. Es ist aber auch schon wieder über ein Jahr her. Ich glaube mich auch daran zu erinnenrn, dass gesagt wurde die Erwärmung in großen Zeiträumen sei schon immer da gewesen. Aber eben nie so schnell und in solch kurzer Zeit.

Gruß, Axel



Edward G. Griffin:

GLOBAL WARMING ACCORDING TO TOM BROKAW

On July 16, 2006, The History Channel, in cooperation with the BBC, broadcast a spectacular two-hour documentary entitled "Global Warming; What You Need to Know." It was hosted by Tom Brokaw, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. The mission of the CFR is to promote world government based on the model of collectivism, so it was no surprise that this program was a powerful propaganda statement for that goal. It advanced the standard collectivist argument: (1) We have a huge problem; and (2) The ultimate solution lies in laws and international treaties, such as the Kyoto Treaty, that will give government the power to dictate the smallest details of personal life, in the name of sustainable development, of course.

"Global Warming; What You Need to Know" is arguably the best science-fiction program ever produced. It is a brilliant combination of powerful images, compelling narration, and half truths. The greatest half-truth is the foundation fact upon which all others are based. It is the statement, repeated over and over again, that virtually all scientists agree that the small amount of global warming measured in the last century is caused by human presence on the planet and that it is a threat to our future survival. If this is true, then almost everything else makes sense. But this is a half-truth. The full truth is that virtually all scientists – selected to be interviewed for this program – hold that view. The full truth is that virtually all scientists whose livelihood depends on grants and tax-derived funding for creating global-warming disaster scenarios and government-mandated solutions hold that view. The full truth is that there are far more scientists who do – not – hold that view and who believe that global warming as we see it today is merely a tiny blip in a long-term Earth cycle and is not significantly effected by human activity - but you will not find their views presented in this documentary except by their detractors who are quick to dismiss them. The viewer is not allowed to know that many of these scientists have come to the conclusion that an increase in levels of carbon dioxide is actually a blessing for mankind and may result in an increase of agricultural production and life expectancy.

At one point, Tom Brokaw says: "The science behind global warming is overpowering." The truth is that the science behind the theory of global warming catastrophe is not overpowering at all, but the impact of the video is. It would be hard for someone who is not aware of the contrary evidence to view this program without coming away feeling that the case for catastrophic global warming has been proved. Period.

I don't know what this program cost, but it would not be surprising if it was in excess of a million dollars. Money does make a difference. Yet, with less than half that amount, it would be possible to produce an equally powerful documentary presenting the untold portion of the story and exposing the fallacies and deceptions embedded in the global-warming myth. But don't hold your breath. That is most unlikely to happen, because there are no agendas for profit or political power to be served by it.

The primary purpose of the global-warming myth is to scare the daylights out of us with visions of massive planetary catastrophe. The images of global winter, global dessert, global storms and floods, global migration, global starvation, and global extinction of species is on a par with the terrifying images conjured up by the threat of terrorist attacks and nuclear war. In all cases, the intended reaction is an emotional, uncritical acceptance of any solution that may be offered. Who cares about the political and social consequences? With such visions of destruction before our eyes, who could think about anything else? Why worry about property or privacy or even freedom when mankind is on the verge of extinction from global warming?

Such is the power of propaganda.




That is most unlikely to happen, because there are no agendas for profit or political power to be served by it.


Bei der Aussage rollt es jedem denkenden Menschen doch die Fussnägel hoch. Jedwelche durch lästigen Filtereinbau, oder sonstigen "Umweltunfug" genervte Firma würde gerne Geld geben um derartige Studien zu stützen. Allen voran die Petrolriesen.

Why worry about property or privacy or even freedom when mankind is on the verge of extinction from global warming?


Ich hab im Rahmen von Kyoto nichts von Enteignungen gehört

The full truth is that virtually all scientists whose livelihood depends on grants and tax-derived funding for creating global-warming disaster scenarios and government-mandated solutions hold that view


Das ist das schöne an einer Professur. Wenn man sie erstmal hat, nimmt einem die keiner so schnell wieder weg. Ergo- die Kohle auch nicht. Zumindest in Deutschland fällt das Argument also schneller zusammen als ein Kartenhaus.





Axel_Wingert_a:
Das ist das schöne an einer Professur. Wenn man sie erstmal hat, nimmt einem die keiner so schnell wieder weg. Ergo- die Kohle auch nicht. Zumindest in Deutschland fällt das Argument also schneller zusammen als ein Kartenhaus.

Befrag dazu mal ein paar Professoren.

Axel_Wingert_a:
Ich hab im Rahmen von Kyoto nichts von Enteignungen gehört.

Hier ein Beitrag eines ehemaligen Professors zum Thema Enteignung — also Verletzung der Eigentumsrechte — und Umwelt:

One of the most dangerous trends today, as far as our right to liberty is concerned, is the environmental movement. I am not talking about their worries, of which some are surely justified. But like so many zealous people, environmentalists tend, in the main, to urge greater government powers and invasion of individual rights, especially the right to private property, in support of dealing with their concerns.

But if we think about this a bit, it becomes clear that the greatest friend of the environment, including endangered species, is the principle of private property rights. One way to appreciate this fact is by considering what would have happened if in the past the principle had been firmly adhered to.

For one, road building would have been curtailed. Indeed, all transportation that had expanded by leaps and bounds relied on the taking of private property, something that the U.S. Constitution permits if it concerns some public use. Had it been strictly implemented, the takings clause of the Constitution would never have permitted the violation of the right to private property since "public use," properly understood in a free country, means only whatever is required for the administration of the legal system, such as a court house or police -- or military -- station. Every other purpose would have had to be achieved without violating anyone's property rights.

This constraint would have required virtually all road and rail building, as well as all building of dams, sports stadiums and similar massive projects, to be carried out on a relatively smaller scale than what government sponsored projects that violate private property rights involve. Sure, some of them could have been carried out by the benign means of purchasing land from those who owned them. But the cost in many cases would have been prohibitive and would probably have induced those embarking on these projects to pursue alternatives.

Take, for example, the expansion of the use of the automobile and of airplanes. Without the government's power to take land so as to build, for example, the Interstate Highway system and huge airports, some alternative modes of transportation might have developed because entrepreneurs would have sought out less expensive ways to proceed with their projects.

Counterfactual history is always highly speculative but not impossible. It is often the stuff of science fiction, as when an author imagines what would have happened had Hitler won World War II or had we had to go without penicillin. In one's personal life, too, one can speculate, often enough, about what might have happened had one driven more carefully when one had an accident or stayed in school instead of rushed into family life.

The exercise I am recommending shouldn't be all that different from such "rational reconstruction." In other words, had the political system that held sway in a country been more strictly consistent with the principles of justice, including the principle of private property rights, we would probably not face many of the environmental problems we do face now.

Consider, as another case in point, pollution. One of the main causes of it is dumping -- manufacturing firms or even individuals disposing of their waste without respecting private property rights and legal authorities failing to step in when this happens. Those "negative externalities" that so many refer to as they badmouth capitalism would be, in fact, systematically prohibited in a fully free, capitalist economic system because they involve the violation of private property rights. Instead of reasoning on the basis of some pseudo-utilitarian calculation, according to which it is OK to violate our rights if only some great project is helped by it, a strict adherence to a system of individual rights would have served as a powerful restraint against irrational development, namely, development that encroached upon the rights of people who did not want the kind of development in question.

So what's the lesson here? I suggest that it is "better late than never." If one wishes to organize human communities sensibly and justly, respecting and protecting individual, including private property, rights is still the right approach.
> Quelle




> Hockeyschlägerkurve widerlegt









Eine Rede von Senator James Inhofe:
http://www.epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759



Al Gore bäst zum Angriff



RICHARD S. LINDZEN:

Mr. Gore assures us that "the debate in the scientific community is over."

That statement, which Mr. Gore made in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, ought to have been followed by an asterisk. What exactly is this debate that Mr. Gore is referring to? Is there really a scientific community that is debating all these issues and then somehow agreeing in unison? Far from such a thing being over, it has never been clear to me what this "debate" actually is in the first place.

The media rarely help, of course. When Newsweek featured global warming in a 1988 issue, it was claimed that all scientists agreed. Periodically thereafter it was revealed that although there had been lingering doubts beforehand, now all scientists did indeed agree. Even Mr. Gore qualified his statement on ABC only a few minutes after he made it, clarifying things in an important way. When Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted Mr. Gore with the fact that the best estimates of rising sea levels are far less dire than he suggests in his movie, Mr. Gore defended his claims by noting that scientists "don't have any models that give them a high level of confidence" one way or the other and went on to claim – in his defense – that scientists "don't know … They just don't know."

mehr …


Werbung
Seiten: 1 2 3 ... Ende Zurück zur Übersicht


>Perfekte Rundenanalysen von Jörg Sobetzki