Last week this Blog reviewed the fixing of data perpetrated by proponents of the man-made global warming theory.  This involved a Pennsylvania State University professor, professors at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, and from other universities.  The fact that climate specialists fudged data indicates the science behind the man-made global warming theory is known to be flawed.

Why would respected scientists forge data?  The motivation is as old as humanity; money.  Want funds for research?  You better jump on the global warming gravy train.  Also, in today’s politically charged atmosphere, science easily takes a back seat to political correctness.

Today’s Wall Street Journal included an op-ed by MIT Meteorology Professor, Richard S. Lindzen.  The paper titled, “The Climate Science Isn’t Settled” is posted in total below.  It proffers reasonable doubt to the Al Gore promoted theory.  I highly recommend this read and follow with tantalizing quotes from it:

• Claims that climate change is accelerating are bizarre.  ……  The quality of the data is poor, though, and because the changes are small, it is easy to nudge such data a few tenths of a degree in any direction.
• The general support for warming is based not so much on the quality of the data, but rather on the fact that there was a little ice age from about the 15th to the 19th century.  Thus it is not surprising that temperatures should increase as we emerged from this episode.  At the same time that we were emerging from the little ice age, the industrial era began, and this was accompanied by increasing emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2, methane and nitrous oxide.
• ……  the main greenhouse substances in the earth’s atmosphere are water vapor and high clouds.
• Even a doubling of CO2 would only upset the original balance between incoming and outgoing radiation by about 2%.
• ……   About 2.5 billion years ago, the sun was 20%-30% less bright than now (compare this with the 2% perturbation that a doubling of CO2 would produce), and yet the evidence is that the oceans were unfrozen at the time, and that temperatures might not have been very different from today’s.
• What does all this have to do with climate catastrophe?  The answer brings us to a scandal that is, in my opinion, considerably greater than that implied in the hacked emails from the Climate Research Unit (though perhaps not as bad as their destruction of raw data): namely the suggestion that the very existence of warming or of the greenhouse effect is tantamount to catastrophe.  This is the grossest of “bait and switch” scams.  It is only such a scam that lends importance to the machinations in the emails designed to nudge temperatures a few tenths of a degree.

Man is by nature narcissistic.  Each generation thinks it is so advanced and unique.  But in reality we change very little.  Galileo went against conventional wisdom and the then politically correct views of the Church.  He was shunned by the Church and his peers.  Today, those who disagree with the new religion of man-made global warming receive a similar rebuke from their high priest, Al Gore, and his flock.  The more things change, the more they are the same!

I conclude with words from Professor Lindzen describing the flawed logic used by the man-made global warming proponents.  This would be humorous if it weren’t for the dangerous consequences to the world that follows this fraudulent science.  (See Op-Ed that follows.)

“Consider the following example.  Suppose that I leave a box on the floor, and my wife trips on it, falling against my son, who is carrying a carton of eggs, which then fall and break.  Our present approach to emissions would be analogous to deciding that the best way to prevent the breakage of eggs would be to outlaw leaving boxes on the floor.  The chief difference is that in the case of atmospheric CO2 and climate catastrophe, the chain of inference is longer and less plausible than in my example.”

The Climate Science Isn’t Settled By Richard S. Lindzen

Is there a reason to be alarmed by the prospect of global warming? Consider that the measurement used, the globally averaged temperature anomaly (GATA), is always changing. Sometimes it goes up, sometimes down, and occasionally—such as for the last dozen years or so—it does little that can be discerned.

Claims that climate change is accelerating are bizarre. There is general support for the assertion that GATA has increased about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since the middle of the 19th century. The quality of the data is poor, though, and because the changes are small, it is easy to nudge such data a few tenths of a degree in any direction. Several of the emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) that have caused such a public ruckus dealt with how to do this so as to maximize apparent changes.

The general support for warming is based not so much on the quality of the data, but rather on the fact that there was a little ice age from about the 15th to the 19th century. Thus it is not surprising that temperatures should increase as we emerged from this episode. At the same time that we were emerging from the little ice age, the industrial era began, and this was accompanied by increasing emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2, methane and nitrous oxide. CO2 is the most prominent of these, and it is again generally accepted that it has increased by about 30%.

The defining characteristic of a greenhouse gas is that it is relatively transparent to visible light from the sun but can absorb portions of thermal radiation. In general, the earth balances the incoming solar radiation by emitting thermal radiation, and the presence of greenhouse substances inhibits cooling by thermal radiation and leads to some warming.

That said, the main greenhouse substances in the earth’s atmosphere are water vapor and high clouds. Let’s refer to these as major greenhouse substances to distinguish them from the anthropogenic minor substances. Even a doubling of CO2 would only upset the original balance between incoming and outgoing radiation by about 2%. This is essentially what is called “climate forcing.”

There is general agreement on the above findings. At this point there is no basis for alarm regardless of whether any relation between the observed warming and the observed increase in minor greenhouse gases can be established. Nevertheless, the most publicized claims of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) deal exactly with whether any relation can be discerned. The failure of the attempts to link the two over the past 20 years bespeaks the weakness of any case for concern.

The IPCC’s Scientific Assessments generally consist of about 1,000 pages of text. The Summary for Policymakers is 20 pages. It is, of course, impossible to accurately summarize the 1,000-page assessment in just 20 pages; at the very least, nuances and caveats have to be omitted. However, it has been my experience that even the summary is hardly ever looked at. Rather, the whole report tends to be characterized by a single iconic claim.

The main statement publicized after the last IPCC Scientific Assessment two years ago was that it was likely that most of the warming since 1957 (a point of anomalous cold) was due to man. This claim was based on the weak argument that the current models used by the IPCC couldn’t reproduce the warming from about 1978 to 1998 without some forcing, and that the only forcing that they could think of was man. Even this argument assumes that these models adequately deal with natural internal variability—that is, such naturally occurring cycles as El Nino, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, etc.

Yet articles from major modeling centers acknowledged that the failure of these models to anticipate the absence of warming for the past dozen years was due to the failure of these models to account for this natural internal variability. Thus even the basis for the weak IPCC argument for anthropogenic climate change was shown to be false.

Of course, none of the articles stressed this. Rather they emphasized that according to models modified to account for the natural internal variability, warming would resume—in 2009, 2013 and 2030, respectively.

But even if the IPCC’s iconic statement were correct, it still would not be cause for alarm. After all we are still talking about tenths of a degree for over 75% of the climate forcing associated with a doubling of CO2. The potential (and only the potential) for alarm enters with the issue of climate sensitivity—which refers to the change that a doubling of CO2 will produce in GATA. It is generally accepted that a doubling of CO2 will only produce a change of about two degrees Fahrenheit if all else is held constant. This is unlikely to be much to worry about.

Yet current climate models predict much higher sensitivities. They do so because in these models, the main greenhouse substances (water vapor and clouds) act to amplify anything that CO2 does. This is referred to as positive feedback. But as the IPCC notes, clouds continue to be a source of major uncertainty in current models. Since clouds and water vapor are intimately related, the IPCC claim that they are more confident about water vapor is quite implausible.

There is some evidence of a positive feedback effect for water vapor in cloud-free regions, but a major part of any water-vapor feedback would have to acknowledge that cloud-free areas are always changing, and this remains an unknown. At this point, few scientists would argue that the science is settled. In particular, the question remains as to whether water vapor and clouds have positive or negative feedbacks.

The notion that the earth’s climate is dominated by positive feedbacks is intuitively implausible, and the history of the earth’s climate offers some guidance on this matter. About 2.5 billion years ago, the sun was 20%-30% less bright than now (compare this with the 2% perturbation that a doubling of CO2 would produce), and yet the evidence is that the oceans were unfrozen at the time, and that temperatures might not have been very different from today’s. Carl Sagan in the 1970s referred to this as the “Early Faint Sun Paradox.”

For more than 30 years there have been attempts to resolve the paradox with greenhouse gases. Some have suggested CO2—but the amount needed was thousands of times greater than present levels and incompatible with geological evidence. Methane also proved unlikely. It turns out that increased thin cirrus cloud coverage in the tropics readily resolves the paradox—but only if the clouds constitute a negative feedback. In present terms this means that they would diminish rather than enhance the impact of CO2.

There are quite a few papers in the literature that also point to the absence of positive feedbacks. The implied low sensitivity is entirely compatible with the small warming that has been observed. So how do models with high sensitivity manage to simulate the currently small response to a forcing that is almost as large as a doubling of CO2? Jeff Kiehl notes in a 2007 article from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the models use another quantity that the IPCC lists as poorly known (namely aerosols) to arbitrarily cancel as much greenhouse warming as needed to match the data, with each model choosing a different degree of cancellation according to the sensitivity of that model.

What does all this have to do with climate catastrophe? The answer brings us to a scandal that is, in my opinion, considerably greater than that implied in the hacked emails from the Climate Research Unit (though perhaps not as bad as their destruction of raw data): namely the suggestion that the very existence of warming or of the greenhouse effect is tantamount to catastrophe. This is the grossest of “bait and switch” scams. It is only such a scam that lends importance to the machinations in the emails designed to nudge temperatures a few tenths of a degree.

The notion that complex climate “catastrophes” are simply a matter of the response of a single number, GATA, to a single forcing, CO2 (or solar forcing for that matter), represents a gigantic step backward in the science of climate. Many disasters associated with warming are simply normal occurrences whose existence is falsely claimed to be evidence of warming. And all these examples involve phenomena that are dependent on the confluence of many factors.

Our perceptions of nature are similarly dragged back centuries so that the normal occasional occurrences of open water in summer over the North Pole, droughts, floods, hurricanes, sea-level variations, etc. are all taken as omens, portending doom due to our sinful ways (as epitomized by our carbon footprint). All of these phenomena depend on the confluence of multiple factors as well.

Consider the following example. Suppose that I leave a box on the floor, and my wife trips on it, falling against my son, who is carrying a carton of eggs, which then fall and break. Our present approach to emissions would be analogous to deciding that the best way to prevent the breakage of eggs would be to outlaw leaving boxes on the floor. The chief difference is that in the case of atmospheric CO2 and climate catastrophe, the chain of inference is longer and less plausible than in my example.

Britney Spears quase perdeu o equipamento do palco da seu show. Um caminhão que levava todos os equipamentos caiu para fora da estrada.

De acordo com o site TMZ, o acidente aconteceu na última madrugada, por volta das 4h30 (horário local), em Parkes, New South Wales na Austrália. O motorista do caminhão foi levado para hospital e o material de Britney não sofreu nenhuma danificação.

Semana passada, também por causa de uma forte tempestada na estrada, o ônibus da turnê de Miley Cyrus virou em Virginia, nos E.U.A. Uma pessoa morreu e várias ficaram feridas.

Desde cuando el icono de las niñas se convirtio en Slutty Cyrus?!, al ver la imagen no entiendo porque: 1.- Kitty usa pasties para tapar sus pezones??, 2.- Porque ponerle un traje de baño claramente para mostrar sus titis??, claro en la vida real los animales se andan tapando esos lugares, hasta donde ha llegado la humanidad XD

Gitme, gelme, yapma, etme, derken
Bir sıkımlık saltanatımız da bitti
Gönlüm şimdi sarı bir kızda
Kurban olmalı mı yeni aşka

Yapsam yapamam kazsam kazamam
vursam vuramam şaştım bu işe
Subay mı, er mi bilmem ama
kafesteyim ben kafeste

Darbe için acaba çok mu erken
Yapar mı yapmaz mı yoksa derken
Günlüğüm şimdi yeni bir kuyuda
Kurban olmalı mı bu cuntaya

yatsam yatamam, kaçsam kaçamam
kalksam kalkamam şaştım bu işe
küçük mü büyük mü bilmem ama
kafesteyim ben kafeste

Ainda agora estava a ver o Late Night with Jimmy Fallon em que a convidada era a já não jovem mas ainda mui sexy Cameron Diaz a fazer um daqueles jogos típicos do programa: por gestos adivinhar uma frase/expressão – Gatas em Telhado de Zinco Quente (de Richard Brooks). Em 45 segundos não adivinhou, mas em 2 segundos fez-se mostrar a sua “cauda” em reboliço pelo chão…

Kan du hitta ett fyrsiffrigt tal, där sista siffran är dubbelt så stor som första och andra siffran tre mindre än tredje siffran?

Lägg ihop första och sista siffran och svaret blir två gånger större än tredje siffran.

sveavägen, 28, stockholm, sverige.

Prof. Nevzat TARHAN
Bu eylem planlarının ‘TSK ya sipariş verilen eylem planları ve psikolojik operasyonları’ olma ihtimali sahte olma ihtimalinden daha yüksek diyen Prof, Dr. Nevzat Tarhan, Yeni Bir Menemen Planı tehlikesine dikkat çekiyor…

1990 Körfez Savaşı  öncesi ABD’nin Saddam’a “Sen Kuveyt’e gir biz senin arkandayız”  dediğini daha sonra Saddam’ın nasıl satıldığını hepimiz biliyoruz.

Aynı şekilde Genelkurmay’a bazı karanlık odakların “Toplumun bu kesimine karşı eylemler yap biz senin arkandayız” deme ihtimali çok güçlüdür.

Mamafih bütün eylemlerin 1993’de dönemin GNK Başkanı Karadayı’nın Belçika’da yaptığı NATO toplantısı ile eşzamanlı başladığını  biliyoruz. Şimdi aynı odaklar TSK’yı yalnız bıraktılar.

Toplumun bir kesimini düşman unsur olarak tanımlayan ordumuz maalesef bu toplumun düşmanlarını  sevindirdi.

Deniz Albay Varımlı

Sağlam karakteri ile tanınan zamanında Çakıcı tarafından tehdit edildiğini söyleyen darbe günlüklerinde adı geçen Deniz Kuvvetleri’nin pek çok gizli işini bilen Albay Ali Belgutay Varımlı sır bir şekilde 10 ncu kattan düşmüş olarak bulundu.

Yakınlarının ifadesine göre sabah namazını kılmış sigara içmek için balkona çıkmış muhtemelen intihar etmiş. Ancak hiç inandırıcı değil, onuruna bu derece düşkün bir subay kendini yüksekten atarak intihar etmek gibi onurunu zedeleyecek bir davranışta bulunmaz.

Bence bu intihar biçimi şüpheli, tam Deniz Kuvvetleri cuntası deşifre edildiği gün, yani ‘Kod adı kafes’ planı basına yansıdığı gün, olaylarla tanık olarak ilgisi olan Denizci Albay yaptıklarının meyvesini topladığı gün neden intihar etsin?

TSK iki başlı mı?

‘Kod adı kafes’ isimli darbe eylem planına adli müşavir parafesi olmadan aklı başında hiç bir kurmay subay imza atmaz. TSK’nın içinde emir komuta zinciri dışında çalışan bir yapılanma ve normal hiyerarşi dışından olan bir örgütleme olma ihtimali çok yüksek.

Bu örgütlenmenin sadece askerlerden oluşması mümkün değil. Medya, iş dünyası ve sivil toplum örgütleri ayakları gerekli.

Aslında Milli Güvenlik Kurulu’na bağlı çalışan psikolojik harekat birimleri var ve MGK’da GATA’dan görevlendirilmiş psikologlar var. Sadece rektörlerden sorumlu bir masa olduğu gibi pek çok masalar da var.

Bu planın TSK bünyesinde değil MGK bünyesinde hazırlanması daha akla uygundur. MGK ya irtica ile mücadele etme görevini veren otorite de sivil iradedir. TSK sorumluluğu gereği durumdan vazife çıkarır.

EMASYA planları pratik darbe aracı olarak halen geçerlidir. Sivil irade adil olmayan mevcut  hukuk sistemini değiştiremezse yeni bir 367 ile karşı karşıya kalabiliriz.

Belgelerin sahte olma ihtimali

Bu eylem planlarının  ‘TSK ya sipariş verilen eylem planları ve psikolojik operasyonları’ olma ihtimali sahte olma ihtimalinden daha yüksek.

Çünkü planlanan operasyonlar ve öngörülen olaylar, geçmişte yaşanan failleri bulunamayan cinayetleri anlamlı şekilde çağrıştırıyor. Ateş olmayan yerden duman çıkmaz diyenler haklılar. Geçmişte Aczimendi ve Ali Kalkancı olayları projeli bir operasyondu.

Siyasete müdahale eden internet siteleri kuran Genelkurmay yazdıklarının gereklerini yani eylem planının takibini yapmayacak mı?

Gelecekte Gayrimüslimlerle Müslimleri çarpıştırma projeli operasyonu deşifre oldu. Kafes Operasyonu olarak geçen belgelerin sahte olmama ihtimali sahte olma ihtimalinden daha yüksektir. Çünkü yakın tarihte TSK’nın siyasetin bu derece içinde olması belgelere inanmamız ihtimalini güçlendirdi.

Yeni Menemen planı  olabilir

Paralel TSK gibi çalışan karanlık komite’nin yeni planı Pilavoğlu planı olabilir. Menemen yaklaşıyor, Korku Cumhuriyeti rüzgarları estirilmeye çalışılıyor. Dersim tartışması geri tepti.

Atatürk’e şirk koşturmam diyen Emekli General Pamukoğlu gibi düşünenlerin çok tanrısal alanları var. Pilavoğlu bilindiği gibi şeyh idi ve 1950’lerde Atatürk büstlerini kırdırmıştı. O tarihlerde DP Hükümeti Atatürk’ü koruma kanunu çıkarmak zorunda kalmıştı.

Bugün İç Hizmet Kanunu Askeri Yargı Kanunu gibi kanunların değişmemesi için benzer provokasyonları beklemek gerekir.

Korku Cumhuriyeti

Korku duygusu insanların analitik düşünmesini bozar ve önyargılı karar vermeyi kolaylaştırır. Bugün “Korku Cumhuriyeti” adı alında kampanya başlatmanın tesadüfi olmadığını bilmek gerekir. Adalet Bakanlığı’nın rutin denetleme işlemlerini bahane edip yürüyenler telekulak paranoyası  ile sonuç alıyorlar. Aslında toplumun devlet tarafından dışlanmış gurupları dinlenme beklentisini doğal kabul ediyorlardı.  İlk defa ayrıcalık beklentisi içinde var olan elitist bürokrasi de dinlenme ihtimali ile yüzleşti. Bu yaygara birazda bunun için.

Darbe beklentisinde olanların sonuç aldıklarının birinci kanıtı da TBMM’nin TSK – Yargı ilişkilerinin düzenlememesi ve Adil Hukuk Sistemi için ciddi adımlar atamamasıdır. İkinci kanıtı da hukuk açılımı  için çırpınan Taraf gazetesinin susturulmaya çalışılmasıdır.

Üçüncü kanıtı ise TSK’nın denetlenememesidir. İşletmeciler çok iyi bilirler “Denetlenmeyen şey de risk vardır”. Elinde silah siyasetle içli dışlı olmuş  üç defa darbe dört defa muhtıra vermiş bir sistem darbecilik açısından sabıkalıdır. TSK’dan vazgeçtik siyaset MGK’yı da denetleyemiyor mu?

Askerini denetlemeyen siyaset sonuçlarına katlanır.

Prof. Dr. Nevzat Tarhan – Haber 7
ntarhan@gmail.com

i had a really great lunch – just one dish. green papaya with gata

very very simple. just sautee ginger and a bit of garlic, then add the “unang piga”  – the milk you get from the initial squeezing of the coconut meat. then add the green papaya and some daing (fish cured in salt). and when the papaya is almost tender add the “kakang gata” or the second squeeze from the coconut meat. season with salt and pepper of course and you’re good to go.

this dish is soooo good. and sensationally healthy and inexpensive. my advice though is you don’t need to eat the actual daing – it may not really match with the rest of the stuff, but put it in there for the flavor and aroma – makes a world of difference

Dizem que existe uma rapaz de blusa branca na imagem. Alguém achou?

Det finns en klassisk gåta som lyder ungefär: “Vilken fråga kan du aldrig svara ja på?” Och svaret brukar vara: “Sover du?”.

Egentligen är svaret (frågan) på frågan flerfaldigt, och ett annat exempel på en fråga som man inte kan svara ja på är den som ställdes nyligen vid en arbetsintervju: “Är du kvinnoförtryckare?”

Vad som är den egentliga frågan är ju vilket svar den som intervjuade förväntade sig.

Tankarna förs genast till flygresor med destination USA och den klassiska gröna lappen (tror den är utbytt nu?) som måste fyllas i och lämnas in för att man ska få besöka landet. Ni vet den där man får frågor i stil med:

• Begick du brott mot mänskligheten under andra världskriget?
• Har du för avsikt att begå någon form av terrorrelaterade brott under din vistelse?
• Vet du hur man tillverkar en bomb och har du planerat att omsätta dina kunskaper i praktiken?

Även om frågorna är seriöst ställda känns det hela ändå mest som ett pre-promilletest; svarar du ja på någon fråga ska du liksom få blåsa i en alkoholmätare. Men jag är lite osäker på vad som faktiskt händer om man svarar ja. Har ju gått rykten om att man får ta nästa plan tillbaka dit man kom ifrån. Någon kanske vet?

Simon Hedlin Larsson

Att visa sin kärlek till någon behöver inte alltid vara så komplicerat. 

Det kan vara så enkelt som ett namn, i lila, på en blöt gata.

Do I need to say more?