ワクチン副作用情報 I thank an unknown cooperator.

Huge Lie


 Climate Change Now Proven To Be A Huge Lie!

Top Climate-gate scientist now admits there has been no Global Warming since 1995!


the IPCC acknowledges that there has been no statistically significant rise at all over the past 16 years.

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?


ジェームズDelingpole / James Delingpole


James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything.He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books, including his most recent work Watermelons: How the Environmentalists are Killing the Planet, Destroying the Economy and Stealing Your Children's Future , also available in the US , and in Australia as Killing the Earth to Save It.His website is http://jamesdelingpole.com/


Watermelons: How Environmentalists are Killing the Planet, Destroying the Economy and Stealing Your Children's Future

Killing the Earth to Save It - James Delingpole


The climate alarmists have lost the debate: it's time we stopped indulging their poisonous fantasy


The story so far: with the release of its Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has proved beyond reasonable doubt that it cannot be taken seriously.

ここではいくつかの理由である。「陽気な矛盾の水準に沈ん「 IPCCの執筆者リチャード博士リンゼンを持っていることのそれを非難しているがナイジェルローソン」ではなく、科学が、マンボジャンボ」と呼んでいます。

Here are a few reasons why: IPCC lead author Dr Richard Lindzen has accused it of having "sunk to a level of hilarious incoherence." Nigel Lawson has called it "not science but mumbo jumbo".

ドナLaframboiseはそれがだらけのいずれかで指摘し、地球温暖化政策財団の博士デビッドホワイトハウスはそれをかわすに地球温暖化の15年(以上) 、一時停止の重要な問題を試してみました方法で、 「回避と不正確」とIPCCのパネルを記載していますエラーや恐ろしく政治的に操作さ - あるいはその両方;

The Global Warming Policy Foundation's Dr David Whitehouse has described the IPCC's panel as "evasive and inaccurate" in the way it tried dodge the key issue of the 15-year (at least) pause in global warming; Donna Laframboise notes that is either riddled with errors or horribly politically manipulated – or both;

ポール·マシューズは、非常に愚かなグラフを発見した、 Steve McIntyreさんは、IPCCがそのモデルと実世界のデータとの間の助けにならない矛盾を難読化しようとしたために、意図的に表示する方法を公開している、とビショップヒル抜群退却は別の宝石を発掘しました:では、そのIPCCの記者会見で、および政策決定者向け要約で置かれて人騒がせなメッセージとは対照的に耳障りな、

Paul Matthews has found a very silly graph; Steve McIntyre has exposed how the IPCC appears deliberately to have tried to obfuscate the unhelpful discrepancy between its models and the real world data; and at Bishop Hill the excellent Katabasis has unearthed another gem: that, in jarring contrast to the alarmist message being put out at IPCC press conferences and in the Summary For Policymakers,

我々は今、どこかに「例外的に「低信頼」の間で科学者によって等級分けされている(永久凍土は氷床の崩壊に融液から)この最後の二十年について警告してきたほとんどすべての恐ろしいシナリオ - レポートの本文には、さまざまな物語そう、 「マイティブッカーからこの最新の。

Paul Matthews has found a very silly graph; Steve McIntyre has exposed how the IPCC appears deliberately to have tried to obfuscate the unhelpful discrepancy between its models and the real world data; and at Bishop Hill the excellent Katabasis has unearthed another gem: that, in jarring contrast to the alarmist message being put out at IPCC press conferences and in the Summary For Policymakers,


MITの気候科学者リチャードリンゼンは、国連のIPCC報告書をリッピング:「最新のIPCC報告書は、本当に陽気な矛盾の水準に沈んだ ' - 'これはIPCCが国際的な気候政策を維持するために通過しなければならないこじつけを見てびっくりです行く '

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen Rips UN IPCC Report: ‘The latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence’ — ‘It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going’


Former UN IPCC Lead Author Richard Lindzen: 'In attributing warming to man, they fail to point out that the warming has been small, and totally consistent with there being nothing to be alarmed about'



気候変動:これは科学ではない - それはマンボジャンボだ
化石燃料を段階的に廃止するIPCCのコールは、発展途上国の経済ナンセンスと「道徳的にとんでもない 'です

Climate change: this is not science – it’s mumbo jumbo The IPCC’s call to phase out fossil fuels is economic nonsense and 'morally outrageous’ for the developing world


On Friday, the UN published its landmark report into climate change, which claimed with “95 per cent” certainty that global warming is man-made.


The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report, compiled by 259 leading scientists, warned that without “substantial and sustained reductions” of greenhouse gas emissions, the world will experience more extreme weather.


However, critics have questioned the scientists’ use of computer forecasting, which, they say, has produced fatalistic scenarios that fail to take into account fully that atmospheric temperatures have barely changed in the past 15 years.


Here, former chancellor Lord Lawson, now chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a climate sceptic think tank, gives his verdict on the report.






IPCC:ファクトの修正 / IPCC: Fixing the Facts

このエントリに未分類カテゴリーに公開22:59で2013年9月30日に掲載Steve McIntyreさん、によって書かれました。
This entry was written by Steve McIntyre , posted on Sep 30, 2013 at 10:59 PM , filed under Uncategorized .


Figure 1.4 of the Second Order Draft clearly showed the discrepancy between models and observations, though IPCC's covering text reported otherwise.I discussed this in a post leading up to the IPCC Report, citing Ross McKitrick's article in National Post and Reiner Grundmann's post at Klimazweiberl.Needless to say, this diagram did not survive.
Instead, IPCC replaced the damning (but accurate) diagram with a new diagram in which the inconsistency has been disappeared.


Here is Figure 1.4 of the Second Order Draft, showing post-AR4 observations outside the envelope of projections from the earlier IPCC assessment reports (see previous discussion here).

二次案の図1.4 / Here is Figure 1.4


Figure 1.Second Order Draft Figure 1.4.Yellow arrows show digitization of cited Figure 10.26 of AR4.


Now here is the replacement graphic in the Approved Draft: this time, observed values are no longer outside the projection envelopes from the earlier reports.IPCC described it as follows:


Even though the projections from the models were never intended to be predictions over such a short time scale, the observations through 2012 generally fall within the projections made in all past assessments.



Figure 2.Approved Version Figure 1.4


So how'd the observations move from outside the envelope to insider the envelope?It will take a little time to reconstruct the movements of the pea.


In the next figure, I've shown a blow-up of the new Figure 1.4 to a comparable timescale (1990-2015) as the Second Draft version.The scale of the Second Draft showed the discrepancy between models and observations much more clearly.I do not believe that IPCC's decision to use a more obscure scale was accidental.


図3。アノテーションを図1.4の詳細。黄色のドットHadCRUT4年間(YTD 2013を含む。)

Figure 3.Detail of Figure 1.4 with annotation.Yellow dots- HadCRUT4 annual (including YTD 2013.)


First and most obviously, the envelope of AR4 projections is completely different in the new graphic.The Second Draft had described the source of the envelopes as follows:


The coloured shading shows the projected range of global annual mean near surface temperature change from 1990 to 2015 for models used in FAR (Scenario D and business-as-usual), SAR (IS92c/1.5 and IS92e/4.5), TAR (full range of TAR Figure 9.13(b) based on the GFDL_R15_a and DOE PCM parameter settings), and AR4 (A1B and A1T).,,,


The [AR4] data used was obtained from Figure 10.26 in Chapter 10 of AR4 (provided by Malte Meinshausen).Annual means are used.The upper bound is given by the A1T scenario, the lower bound by the A1B scenario.


The envelope in the Second Draft figure can indeed be derived from AR4 Figure 10.26.In the next figure, I've shown the original panel of Figure 10.26 with observations overplotted, clearly showing the discrepancy.I've also shown the 2005, 2010 and 2015 envelope with red arrows (which I've transposed to other diagrams for reference).That observations fall outside the projection envelope of the AR4 figure is obvious.


図4。AR4図10.26 / Figure 4.AR4 Figure 10.26


The new IPCC graphic no longer cites an AR4 figure. Instead of the envelope presented in AR4, they now show a spaghetti graph of CMIP3 runs, of which they state:


For the AR4 results are presented as single model runs of the CMIP3 ensemble for the historical period from 1950 to 2000 (light grey lines) and for three scenarios (A2, A1B and B1) from 2001 to 2035.

グラフの右側にバーは、各評価報告書のために2035年に与えられたすべての範囲を示しています。3 SRESシナリオのためのバーがCMIP3アンサンブルの意味とMeehlらに評価されるように、平均値の60パーセント-40%で与えられる可能性が高い範囲が表示されます。

The bars at the right hand side of the graph show the full range given for 2035 for each assessment report.


(2007).The publication years of the assessment reports are shown.See Appendix 1.A for details on the data and calculations used to create this figure…

AR4の温度予測は、3 SRESシナリオのために提示されています。B1、A1BとA2 個々のCMIP3アンサンブルシミュレーションの1961年から1990年を基準年平均異常が(で使用した第4次評価報告書のSPM図SPM5)が示されている。

The temperature projections of the AR4 are presented for three SRES scenarios: B1, A1B and A2. Annual mean anomalies relative to 1961–1990 of the individual CMIP3 ensemble simulations (as used in AR4 SPM Figure SPM5) are shown.


One outlier has been eliminated based on the advice of the model developers because of the model drift that leads to an unrealistic temperature evolution.As assessed by Meehl et al.(2007), the likely-range for the temperature change is given by the ensemble mean temperature change +60% and –40% of the ensemble mean temperature change.


Note that in the AR4 the uncertainty range was explicitly estimated for the end of the 21st century results.Here, it is shown for 2035.The time dependence of this range has been assessed in Knutti et al.(2008).The relative uncertainty is approximately constant over time in all estimates from different sources, except for the very early decades when natural variability is being considered (see Figure 3 in Knutti et al., 2008).


For the envelopes from the first three assessments, although they cite the same sources as the predecessor Second Draft Figure 1.4, the earlier projections have been shifted downwards relative to observations, so that the observations are now within the earlier projection envelopes.


You can see this relatively clearly with the Second Assessment Report envelope: compare the two versions.At present, I have no idea how they purport to justify this.


None of this portion of the IPCC assessment is drawn from peer-reviewed material.Nor is it consistent with the documents sent to external reviewers.



Climate change 'scientists’ are just another pressure group

The IPCC and its reports have been shaped by a close-knit group of scientists, all dedicated to the cause


先週末、非常奇妙何かが起こった。金曜日に私たちはストックホルムで気候変動に関する国連の政府間パネル(IPCC )は、今、世界は悲惨な人為的な気候変動に直面していることを「非常に可能性が高い」だったという報告書を発表していたと言われた。しかし、これは単に、 3日後まで出版されなかった政治家や科学的な報告書の媒体のための「概要」だった。

Last weekend, something very odd happened. On Friday we were told that in Stockholm the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC) had published a report saying that it was now “extremely likely” that the world faces disastrous man-made climate change. But this was merely a “summary” for politicians and the media of a scientific report that was not published until three days later.


We then learnt that this “Summary for Policymakers” had been argued over for days and sleepless nights by hundreds of politicians, officials and scientists, but, weirdly, that the scientific report it supposedly summarised had subsequently been amended to bring it into line with the summary. One obvious change from previous drafts was the marked downplaying of any reference to how, in recent years, global temperatures have so notably failed to rise as the IPCC’s computer models predicted.

これは今、「Aがあったことを改めて「要約」の政治家やいくつかの重要な科学者がクレームを挿入することにより、適切なレポートよりも多くの憂慮すべきとしたことにより、以上の大敗1996でIPCCを打ち返すために最初のスキャンダルの不気味なリプレイだった世界の気候に認識できる人間の影響」 。

This was an uncanny replay of the first scandal to hit the IPCC back in 1996, when again the “summary” thrashed over by politicians and a few key scientists was made more alarming than the report proper by inserting a claim that there was now “a discernible human influence” on the world’s climate.


Scientists who had approved the report protested that there was nothing in their text to justify this. But, to their amazement, they discovered that their agreed version had been amended to include this very phrase, citing as its authority two papers not yet published by Ben Santer, an American scientist who had also played a key part in drafting the summary.


All this, and the revelation that Santer had deleted 15 passages casting doubt on man-made warming from the agreed text, famously prompted Prof Frederick Seitz, a revered former president of the US National Academy of Sciences, to protest that never in 60 years as a scientist had he “witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process”. Last weekend Dr Santer was again playing a part in the events that led to a virtual repeat of what happened in 1995.
Related Articles

関連記事 / Related Articles



 And there's plenty more where that came from.


Now, of course, I fully appreciate how the climate alarmists are going to respond to these criticisms: same way they always do – with a barrage of lies, ad homs, cover-ups, rank-closings, blustering threats, straw men, and delusion-bubble conferences like the one they've just staged at the Royal Society in which one warmist pseudo-scientist after another mounts the podium to reassure his amen corner that everything's going just fine and that those evil denialists couldn't be more wrong.

リモート太平洋の島々での'45での北欧の狼男やそれらの熱狂的な日本のホールドアウトのような彼らの失われた大義のために最後の最後まで戦う - - まあ、それは彼らがそれを再生する方法だ場合、私はそれは彼らの問題だと思う。

Well, if that's how they want to play it – fighting to the bitter end for their lost cause like Werewolves in Northern Europe in '45 or those fanatical Japanese hold outs on remote Pacific islands – I guess that's their problem.


But what I really don't think we should be doing at this stage in the game is allowing it to be our problem too.
As I argued here the other week, there is more than enough solid evidence now to demonstrate to any neutral party prepared to cast half an eye over it that the doomsday prognostications the warmist establishment has been trying to frighten us with these last two decades are a nonsense.


The man-made global warming scare story has not a shred of scientific credibility.And while I don't expect the alarmists to admit this any time soon, I do think the rest of us should stop indulging them in their poisonous fantasy.


I'm thinking, for example, of this line from the Spectator's otherwise superb, accurate and fair editorial summarising the state of play on climate:



Finally, the IPCC has toned down its climate change alarm.
Can rational discussion now begin?


来週、破滅的な気候変動の悲惨な予測をした人たちは、自分の不都合な真実に直面しています。気候変動に関する政府間パネル(IPCC )による第5次評価報告書の概要は、地球の気温は、ほぼすべての気候モデルで彼らのために予測されたパスに従うことを拒否していることを示し、公開されます。 1990年の最初の報告以来、 IPCCは地球の気温は、10年ごとに0.2 °摂氏の平均で上昇するだろうと予測してきた。今、 IPCCは、過去16年間で統計的に有意な上昇がなかったことを認めている。

Next week, those who made dire predictions of ruinous climate change face their own inconvenient truth. The summary of the fifth assessment report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will be published, showing that global temperatures are refusing to follow the path which was predicted for them by almost all climatic models. Since its first report in 1990, the IPCC has been predicting that global temperatures would be rising at an average of 0.2° Celsius per decade. Now, the IPCC acknowledges that there has been no statistically significant rise at all over the past 16 years.

それは、この報告書の重要性を強調オーバーすることは困難である。 IPCCは報告書や、単に政治的な議論に吸収される宣言を行うだけで、研究体ではありません。その言葉は、福音とされており、その研究は、再生可能エネルギーに助成金を支給しながら、炭素ベースのエネルギーがより高価にするスキームのすべての方法を正当化するために使用されてきた。

It is difficult to over-emphasise the significance of this report. The IPCC is not simply a research body making reports and declarations which are merely absorbed into political debate. Its word has been taken as gospel, and its research has been used to justify all manner of schemes to make carbon-based energy more expensive while subsidising renewable energy.

その予測の失敗は、気候変動の科学の上に置かれてきたの確信を損なう。ここに小さな微調整が発生します。以前のIPCCのレポート - - そしてそれらに反応するかをめぐる議論の多くは、それがサーモスタットのダイヤルに類似した炭素排出量と国内のセントラルヒーティングシステム、であるかのように地球の気候を処理するために登場している正確に0.2℃の温度上昇など。何が新しいIPCC報告書から明らかなことは、科学が地球の温度の上昇、将来に関する有用な予測を行うために十分に近い進んでいないということです。多分それはないであろうことはない。

The failure of its predictions undermines the certainties which have been placed upon the science of climate change. Previous IPCC reports — and much of the debate over how to react to them — have appeared to treat the Earth’s climate as if it were a domestic central heating system, with carbon emissions analogous to the dial on the thermostat: a small tweak here will result in a temperature rise of precisely 0.2°C and so on. What is clear from the new IPCC report is that the science is not nearly advanced enough to make useful predictions on the future rise of global temperatures. Perhaps it never will be.

一部の気候科学者自身が、それらに信用を与えるために、限り認めている。彼らの論文は、今あなたが本物の科学者から期待されるように、注意の度合いを組み込む。非科学者が気候変動の時流に応じLEAPおよび「科学」をマークし、何が最後の言葉でなければならないことを前提としていた場合に問題が生じる。化学者や小説家C.P.など適切な科学が反論を歓迎し、絶対的な真理の概念を警戒であることを認識しない - かつて「二つの文化」についての彼の講演で警告した雪は、あなたが非科学者が議論を黙らせるハーフ理解のレポートを使用状況に終わる。

Some climate scientists themselves, to give them credit, have admitted as much. Their papers now incorporate a degree of caution, as you would expect from genuine scientists. The problems arise when the non-scientists leap upon the climate change bandwagon and assume that anything marked ‘science’ must be the final word. As the chemist and novelist C.P. Snow once warned in his lecture about the ‘two cultures’, you end up in a situation where non-scientists use half-understood reports to silence debate — not realising that proper science welcomes refutation and is wary of the notion of absolute truths.

我々は常に「ほとんどの科学者は、気候変動に関する合意され'ことに留意している間、それはどのように気候のハルマゲドンの最も著名な人物の警告の多くは、それ自体が科学者ではない顕著である。 IPCCの議長、ラジェンドラ·パチャウリは、鉄道のエンジニアです。気候変動の彼の映画、不都合な真実、のためにIPCCにノーベル賞を共有したアル·ゴアは、障害が発生した米国の大統領候補である。その2006年報告書「科学が決済されている」と言って、環境長官デビッドミリバンドを引き起こしたスターン卿は、経済学者である。いくつかの科学者はこのような主張をするだろう。

And while we are constantly reminded that ‘most scientists are agreed on climate change’, it is remarkable how many of the most prominent figures warning of climatic Armageddon are not themselves scientists. The chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, is a railway engineer. Al Gore, who shared a Nobel prize with the IPCC for his film of climate change, An Inconvenient Truth, is a failed US presidential candidate. Lord Stern, whose 2006 report provoked the then environment secretary David Miliband to say ‘the science is settled’, is an economist. Few scientists would make such a claim.


As Lord Lawson, former editor of this magazine, once pointed out, the time to be most fearful in politics is when a consensus emerges. It usually means that an argument is not properly probed, and desire to sign up to a fashionable cause supplants the proper rigour which policymaking requires. We certainly saw this with the Climate Change Act, which committed future governments unilaterally to slashing Britain’s carbon emissions to a fifth of what they had been in 1990. The bill was passed in an atmosphere in which sceptics were likened to flat-earthers, with no one stopping to ask what it would achieve for the environment, and at what cost to Britain.

それらは、ゴードン·ブラウンは厳粛に彼は、コペンハーゲン気候変動会議の前に、世界を救うために50日を持っていたと宣言日であった。期限が過ぎ、世界は生き残った - しかし、この複雑な惑星の我々の理解は向上しています。そしておそらく、我々は「気候グラスノスチ」に向かって動いている。 、最終的には、科学は合理的に議論することができ、我々はそれらの日に行われた決定を研究し、気候変動法は、実際には、深くしたことがわかり、時間れるその他の国(特に米国)が低エネルギー価格のポリシーに従っている時に一度に膨大なエネルギー法案貧しい住宅所有者にヒットする法律の無責任な一枚。

Those were the days when Gordon Brown solemnly declared he had 50 days to save the world before the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference. The deadline passed and the world survived — but our understanding of this complex planet has improved. And perhaps we are moving towards a ‘climate glasnost’; a time in which, finally, the science can be debated rationally and we can study the decisions made in those days, and see that the Climate Change Act was, in fact, a deeply irresponsible piece of legislation which will hit poor homeowners with huge energy bills at a time when other countries (especially the US) are following a policy of low energy prices.

彼の「二つの文化」講演会、 C.P.やがて雪は科学は進行中の作業であることを説明した。科学的な使命は、利用可能な最良の情報を取る'いくつかのポインタ読み取りを行う、いくつかのより予測するために、彼らから精神的な工事をする'をすることです。予測が正しいことが判明した場合、彼は精神的な建設は、一瞬、良いものです」と言った。それが間違っている場合は、別の精神的な建設が。試されなければならない'だから、気候変動の科学である。そこに惑星が温暖化していることを多くの疑いがなく、男は、少なくとも部分的に責任があります。しかし、古い予測モデルの失敗は、それを明確に炭素排出と地球温暖化との間に単純な関係がないことを確認します。

Long before his ‘two cultures’ lecture, C.P. Snow explained that science is a work in progress. The scientific mission is to take the best information available, ‘take some pointer readings, make a mental construction from them in order to predict some more’. If the prediction turns out to be right, he said, ‘the mental construction is, for the moment, a good one. If it is wrong, another mental construction has to be tried.’ So it is with climate change science. There is not much doubt that the planet is warming, and man is at least partially responsible. But the failure of the old prediction models make it clear that there is not a simple relationship between carbon emissions and global warming.

物事が働いてきたように、豊かな世界の炭素排出量は、いずれにしても低下してきた - いないため、環境税ではなく、より良い技術、 frackingのよう。地球温暖化は今でも記念碑的な挑戦であるが、必ずしも道路を切り、空から貧しい人々を課税することによって満たされる必要はない1 。正気では、環境の議論に戻っている。私たちはあまりにも長い前に、それはまた、英国のエネルギー政策に戻り、ことを期待しましょう​​。

As things have worked out, carbon emissions in the rich world have been falling anyway — not due to green taxes but to better technology, like fracking. Global warming is still a monumental challenge, but one that does not necessarily have to be met by taxing the poor off the roads and out of the sky. Sanity is returning to the environmental debate. Let us hope that, before too long, it also returns to British energy policy.


This article first appeared in the print edition of The Spectator magazine, dated 21 September 2013



Global warming is still a monumental challenge….

でしょうか?地球寒冷より「記念碑的な「挑戦のより?そしてその文の証拠が場所を正確に見つけることができますか?私はそれを見てみたい - してください。ここ150年間で控えめな0.8度Cの温暖化を証明するデータは、効果よりも害を行っているのか?

Is it?More of a "monumental" challenge than global cooling?
Please – I'd love to see it.Where's the data that proves the modest 0.8 degrees C warming in the last 150 years has done more harm than good?


It may seem unduly picky to quibble over just seven errant words from an otherwise immaculate 800 word editorial.
But it's precisely intellectually lazy concessions like this that are serving only to prolong a propaganda war that really should have ended long ago.


I feel the same way when I read one of those on-the-one-hand-and-on-the-other think pieces from someone on the "sceptical" side of the argument or an editorial in a newspaper trying to position itself as the voice of reasonable authority on the climate issue.You know the sort I mean: where, in order to make his case seem more balanced and sympathetic the author concedes at the beginning that there are faults and extremists on both sides of the argument and that it's time we all met in the middle and found a sensible solution.(I call this the Dog Poo Yoghurt Fallacy )

これは、不条理な不正、不正確で逆効果である。それは、いくつかの異端の間猫とネズミの長い、長い試合後、あるかのように、アウトオン·四肢私立探偵と巨大マフィアカルテル、外の仲裁人のステップでだと言う: "まあ、障害が両側にあります。あなたマフィアの人々はあなたの数十億ドル規模の犯罪まくると、実際にはかなりいたずらだった。しかし、あなたはマフィアのカルテルを記述するために使用してきたその言語のいくつかは実際にはかなり攻撃的であるので、民間の研究者が、あなたも叱責を受けるに値すると人を傷つける。なぜ、あなたは実際には "盗み犯罪者を。"それらを呼び出すしてきた

This is absurd, dishonest, inaccurate and counterproductive.
It's as if, after a long, long game of cat and mouse between a few maverick, out-on-a-limb private investigators and an enormous Mafia cartel, an outside arbitrator steps in and says: "Well there's fault on both sides. You Mafia people have been really quite naughty with your multi-billion dollar crime spree. But you private investigators, you deserve a rap on the knuckles too because some of that language you've been using to describe the Mafia cartel is really quite offensive and hurtful. Why, you've actually been calling them "thieving criminals."

「しかし、彼らは犯罪者を窃盗している」と研究者らは、抗議。「そして、あなたはそれは、私たちはこのケースを追求する費用が持っているものすべてのアイデアを持っているのですか?あなたはカルテルは、私たちを中傷たちを過小評価、私たちは狂った過激派のように見えるように働いたか一生懸命実現か?これらの人々は数十億を盗まれている、彼らは嘘をついてきた、彼らは「あなたは自分の入札気持ちがあったので、彼らは特別な好意に値するという彼らからかっ相談役ロベルト "マッドドッグ"区のもっともらしい議論に購入しようとしているものを、彼らは非常に多くの人の死亡の原因だし、あなたがしている、だまさVEの不親切言語を傷つける? "

"But they are thieving criminals," the investigators protest."And do you have any idea what it has cost us pursuing this case? Do you realise how hard the cartel worked to vilify us, marginalise us, make us seem like crazed extremists? These people have stolen billions, they've lied, they've cheated, they're responsible for numerous deaths, and you're, what, you're going to buy into the specious argument of their bullshitting consigliere Roberto "Mad Dog" Ward that they deserve special favours because their tender feelings have been hurt with unkind language?"

これをエスカレートするが、それは我々が両側に障害があることをふりをしているのは滑稽な外交ゲームに長くなることを停止することはない - - それは我々がこの戦いで手袋を脱いだ時が来ていない、それが本当の任意の方法でだからではなく、気候のため詐欺は、電源や顔を節約するために許可されたことによって甘やかされる必要がある権限の位置のあまりに多くの人々が存在するように広大で包括的なです。

It's time we took the gloves off in this fight – not to escalate it but to stop it being prolonged with this ludicrous diplomatic game where we have to pretend that there's fault on both sides – not because it's in any way true, but because the climate scam is so vast and all-encompassing that there are just too many people in positions of power or authority who need to be indulged by being allowed to save face.

なぜ? / Why?

あなたが、一例を挙げると、先週は2 warmistsはDEFRA国務オーウェン·パターソンでやってみるようにスペースを与えられた。

To give you but one example, last week two warmists were given space to have a go at DEFRA Secretary of State Owen Paterson.

マンチェスター大学の教授ケビンアンダーソンは、語った独立を: "我々は、気候変動によって何とかできると彼の見解は、植民地時代、傲慢、豊かな人の図である。"

Professor Kevin Anderson, of Manchester University, told the Independent: “His view that we can muddle through climate change is a colonial, arrogant, rich person’s view.”

オックスフォード大学の教授マイルズ·アレン、報告書の執筆者の1は、言った: "私はそれが非常に憂慮すべきこの人は、気候変動に[イギリス]の適応で起訴されていることがわかります。私はそれが科学が言っていることの現実的な理解を持っている適応のために計画している誰のために良いアイデアだと思います。 "

And Professor Myles Allen of Oxford University, one of the authors of the report, said: “I find it very worrying that this person is charged with adapting [Britain] to climate change.I do think it is a good idea for whoever is planning for adaptation to have a realistic understanding of what the science is saying.”

This rightly taxed the patience of even the scrupulously non-combative Bishop Hill:


One can't help but think that politicians' understanding of the science might be helped if scientists, including Professor Allen, had tried to write a clear explanation of it rather than trying to obfuscate any difficulty that might distract from the message of doom.


Quite.What Paterson said about the current state of climate change is both demonstrably true and wholly unexceptionable:


“People get very emotional about this subject and I think we should just accept that the climate has been changing for centuries”, he said.

「人のために、死の最大の原因は、冬に夏は熱よりはるかに大きい冷えていることを忘れないでください。また、より長い生育期につながる、あなたが寒い地域の一部にノースリトルさらに成長して拡張することができる。 "

“Remember that for humans, the biggest cause of death is cold in winter, far bigger than heat in summer.It would also lead to longer growing seasons and you could extend growing a little further north into some of the colder areas. ”

実際に新しいIPCC報告書の本体に支持され、さらにステートメント、(上記参照) - - 学界の公設席の楽なsinecuresと悪徳弁護士の先生は、紛れも明らかのような合理的な文に対抗したい場合は、ONUはオンになっているそれらは、検証可能な事実ではなく、漠然とした、感情的な塗抹標本を用いて、そのようにすることができません。

If shyster professors with cushy sinecures in state-funded seats of academe wish to counter such reasonable statements of the glaringly obvious – statements, furthermore, which are actually supported by the body of the new IPCC report (see above) – then the onus is on them to do so using verifiable facts rather than vague, emotive smears.

我々は今にいる状況が同盟を事前に熱狂的な抵抗の小さなポケットによって開かれた1945年の犬の日に似ています - 第二次世界大戦 - 類推の私のお気に入りのフィールドに戻ります。連合軍は選択肢を持っていた:どちらか苦心して数々の歩兵を犠牲にして、各村を取るか、または単純に立ち、それらの村々に最後通告を与える - あなたは我々の大砲であなたを消し去るつもりない場合は、降伏する時間を持っており、 。

To return to my favourite field of analogy – World War II – the situation we're in now is analogous to the dog days of 1945 when the allied advance was held up by small pockets of fanatical resistance.The Allies had a choice: either painstakingly take each village at the cost of numerous infantry or simply stand back and give those villages an ultimatum – you have an hour to surrender and if you don't we're going to obliterate you with our artillery.

私たちは、この問題に関する立場を取らなければならない。片側は右である、1辺は非常に単純に間違っていると屈辱と圧倒的に敗北に値する。そしてすぐに - 真実、良識と自由を信じている私たちすべての人のための - より良い。

We have to take a stand on this issue.One side is right; one side is quite simply wrong and deserves to be humiliated and crushingly defeated.And the sooner – for all those of us who believe in truth, decency and liberty – the better.

記事元サイト / Article source site


powered by Quick Homepage Maker 4.51
based on PukiWiki 1.4.7 License is GPL. QHM

最新の更新 RSS  Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional