Leif Gram: Mr. Fix


Я думаю, на президентских выборах в 2020 году победит та партия, которая сумеет убедить избирателей, что глобальное потепление устроили китайцы и мексиканцы.
Последние абзацы:

“Today we can demonstrate and prove the sun’s effect on climate based on a wide range of evidence, from fossils that are hundreds of millions of years old to buoy readings to satellite altimetry data from the past few decades,” he said. “We also can reproduce and mimic atmospheric conditions in the laboratory to confirm the evidence.

"All of it shows the same thing, the bulk of climate change is caused by the sun via its impact on atmospheric charge,” he said. “Which means that most of the warming comes from nature, whereas a doubling of the amount of CO2 raises temperature by only 1.0 to 1.5 degrees.  A freshman physics student can see this.”

Nevertheless, the world of climate science has “mostly ignored” his research findings. “Of course, I’m frustrated,” he said. “Our findings are very inconvenient for conventional wisdom” as summarized by the IPCC.  “We know that there have been very large variations of climate in the past that have little to do with the burning of fossil fuels.  A thousand years ago the earth was as warm as it is today. During the Little Ice Age three hundred years ago the River Thames froze more often.  In the first and second IPCC reports these events were mentioned.  In 2001 they disappeared. Suddenly no mention of natural warming, no Little Ice Age. The climate of the last millennium was presented as basically fixed until the twentieth century.  This is a kind of Orwellian cherry-picking to fit a pre-determined narrative.”

Shaviv says that he has accepted no financial support for his research by the fossil fuel industry. Experiments in Denmark with Prof. Henrik Svensmark and others to demonstrate the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation were supported by the Carlsberg Foundation. In the U.S. the conservative Heartland Institute and the European Institute for Climate and Energy have invited him to speak, covering travel expenses.

“The real problem is funding from funding agencies like the National Science Foundation because these proposals have to undergo review by people in a community that ostracizes us,” he said, because of his non-conventional viewpoint.

“Global warming is not a purely scientific issue any more,” he said.  “It has repercussions for society.  It has also taken on a moralistic, almost religious quality. If you believe what everyone believes, you are a good person. If you don’t, you are a bad person.  Who wants to be a sinner?”

Any scientist who rejects the UN’s IPCC report, as he does, will have trouble finding work, receiving research grants or publishing, he said.

In Shaviv’s view, the worldwide crusade to limit and eventually ban the use of fossil fuels isn’t just misguided “it comes with real world social and economic consequences.” Switching to more costly energy sources, for example, will drive industry from more industrialized countries to poorer countries that can less afford wind turbines and solar panels.

“It may be a financial sacrifice the rich are willing to make," he said. “Even in developed countries the pressure to forego fossil fuel puts poor people in danger of freezing during the winter for lack of affordable home heating.  The economic growth of third world countries will be inhibited if they cannot borrow from the World Bank to develop cheap fossil-based power plants. These are serious human problems in the here and now, not in a theoretical future.”

For Shaviv, the rejection and closed-mindedness his minority view provoke may contain a silver lining.  Just think of the acclaim that awaits if his research -- and scientific reconsideration of the current orthodoxy -- one day proves persuasive.

Я каждый раз думаю: все ебанулись. Но ведь и ебанулись-то все по-разному!
Шпигель писал в мае: AfD Hopes to Win Votes by Opposing Climate Protection

там прямо написано: "The far-right party, meanwhile, has relied on highly dubious experts, like physicist Nir Shaviv, who appeared before the environment committee."

почему он highly dubious они не объясняют, однако дальше пишут, что согласно его теории на климат влияет some special solar force.

в общем, достаточно одного упоминания его имени рядом с AfD. guilt by association.

еще поразительная статья в Forbes в 2012-м (!): Anti-Science Climate Deniers On The Retreat In Germany. там тоже упоминается Nir Shaviv, и многие дргие. удивительно то, что содержанне статьи противоречит заголовку. например там сказано: "The conference’s unmistakable lesson was that the scientific evidence is woefully short of supporting alarmist assertions that humans are causing a global warming crisis."

Edited at 2019-08-10 11:21 am (UTC)
не противоречит, из самой статьи очевидно, что словами "Anti-Science Climate Deniers" они называют отрицателей того, что климат меняется сам собой без углекислоты/человечества, то есть как раз потеплистов
вы правы, спасибо, я не прочел достаточно внимательно.