tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-45831403805839325492024-02-22T09:35:14.186-08:00Clima | Climate || Virtual vs RealA IPCC/ONU quer convencer-nos que a Pequena Idade de Gelo - é o Aquecimento Global Antropogénico || The IPCC/UN wants to convince us that the Little Ice Age is in fact the Anthropogenic Global WarmingIgor Khmelinskiihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18352534067660168179noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4583140380583932549.post-55469097163929805472017-05-10T08:55:00.000-07:002017-05-10T09:20:18.335-07:00Public discussion in a brainwashed society leads nowhere<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVkMCIeu0W9pF6LQXtjJn2bYa-LUNsdjly28GfVKmH1WSWqpmcGrIo2o_QsaB6oFTEyIBs8tMY1d8omOlxWZZM7UAXmkHyglQTMn6Qe3xvK5tEGOx4w8w6dzF_EP9y2sXmAicw_f3zEmQQ/s1600/2017-05-10_15-29-05.png" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="199" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVkMCIeu0W9pF6LQXtjJn2bYa-LUNsdjly28GfVKmH1WSWqpmcGrIo2o_QsaB6oFTEyIBs8tMY1d8omOlxWZZM7UAXmkHyglQTMn6Qe3xvK5tEGOx4w8w6dzF_EP9y2sXmAicw_f3zEmQQ/s320/2017-05-10_15-29-05.png" width="320" /></a>
<br />
<br />
Yesterday I went to the debate devoted to the Day of Europe at Teatro Lethes (<a href="http://www.actateatro.org.pt/teatrolethes/" target="_blank">see p. 46 of their Agenda</a>), with Paulo Dentinho and Ricardo Pais Mamede as panelists. Unfortunately, public participation in the debate got limited to the personal friends of the moderator (person different from that announced in the Agenda), therefore I could not contribute. Both panelists were mildly critical of the EU institutions and of the single European currency, getting some applause, though following the national elites in promoting no action at all on either of these issues. The most important opinions expressed may be summed up as "EU has been fundamental in keeping peace in Europe since WWII", "we are better in EU than out", "we may get out of the single currency, by the decision of others" and "any significant changes in European institutions may only be initiated by Germany".<br />
Importantly, both panelists proudly contribute to the mediatic environment that generates the tide of fake news, modeling the public conscience into acceptance of all of the policies promoted by the EU industries. Apparently they have brainwashed themselves as well, condemned to thinking-inside-the-box.<br />
This begs some questions, which I will limit to information and economics, the areas of the professional activity of the panelists. Mr. Donald Trump, the President of the United States, the stalwart of democracy and the country that is providing for the defence of the EU, told us that Reuters has been the main generator of fake news in his respect. This is obviously true, as may be easily verified by consulting the video records of his speeches that Reuters has been deliberately distorting. Has RTP admitted its errors in citing Reuters? Is Mr Dentinho, the director of Information at RTP, planning to do some actual journalism instead of translating Reuters fake news? Will Portuguese public ever receive the news service it is paying for?<br />
The economic ideas of Mr Mamede are quite naive, as he fails to understand the very notion of money. The absurdity of the single currency in the system with many different economies with their specific national tax legislations goes far beyond the fact that economic competitiveness may require different price of money in different economies, gravely affecting the weaker economies that have no say in the matter. Indeed, Lenin wrote already 100 years ago that it is the <a href="https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/23.htm" target="_blank">international capital who will be profiting from the united Europe</a>. Mr Memede, while mentioning Piketty who demonstrated the accumulation of capital predicted by Marx, refuses to recognise that the primary problem of the EU single currency lies in the very nature of capitalism. Thus, the single currency is used by the capital as a profit-making tool, starting from the member states having to borrow money from private banks in order to finance their current activities. Will Mr Mamede ever attempt to think out of his comfortable box?Igor Khmelinskiihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18352534067660168179noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4583140380583932549.post-84332276357200332652014-02-23T13:16:00.001-08:002014-02-24T13:42:27.588-08:00IPCC is all about money - as we already knew! <br />
<br />
This is what came recently into my email box:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<pre wrap="">With the compliments of Cambridge University Press.
As you were a Contributing Author or Expert Reviewer of the IPCC AR5 Working Group I volume 'Climate Change 2013: The Scientific Basis', I am delighted to offer you a special discount, should you wish to order copies of the printed volume direct from Cambridge University Press. The volume is available for pre-order now.
Please click on the following website to order copies at the discount rate:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.cambridge.org/knowledge/academic_discountpromotion/?&code=IPCC13">www.cambridge.org/knowledge/academic_discountpromotion/?&code=IPCC13</a>
I have also attached a discount flyer: please feel free to forward this to your colleagues. The 20% discount runs until the end of 2014.
We will also be publishing the Working Group II and III volumes later in 2014, at which time you will also be able to order those.
In addition, if you should have any plans of your own to write or edit books in the future, then I would of course be very interested to hear from you.
Best wishes,
Matt Lloyd </pre>
<pre wrap=""> </pre>
<pre wrap="">(See attached file: WGI AR5 IPCC volume discount flyer.pdf)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Matt Lloyd
Editor: Earth Sciences
Publishing Director: Science, Technology & Medicine, Americas
Cambridge University Press
32 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10013-2473, USA
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mlloyd@cambridge.org">mlloyd@cambridge.org</a>
tel +1 212-337-5956
Follow us on Twitter CambUP_earthsci</pre>
</blockquote>
<br />
Thus, those who would like to read the IPCC climate lies on paper, have to pay for it. Obviously, my review (<a href="http://clima-virtual-vs-real.blogspot.pt/2012/11/my-expert-review-of-5th-ipcc-climate.html" target="_blank">posted below</a>) had been completely ignored by the IPCC fraudsters. While money talks, science has to shut up.<br />
<br />
Igor Khmelinskiihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18352534067660168179noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4583140380583932549.post-28822929670028659472013-11-11T16:53:00.001-08:002013-11-11T17:23:29.031-08:00On the quality of research, or - are we doing any science?<br />
<br />
On November 1, 2013, I spent half a day at the <a href="http://cienciapolar.weebly.com/" target="_blank">5th Portuguese Conference on Polar Sciences</a>, at the Algarve University in Faro. I was doing a social sciences experiment, making observations relevant to two science-related issues:<br />
<h3>
</h3>
<h3>
1. Do researchers know what science is?</h3>
<br />
I asked two of the researchers who were making their reports the following question: Taking into account that any progress of science is only possible if we formulate and question hypotheses, seeking experimental evidence allowing to reject some of these hypotheses, what were the hypotheses you have formulated, and how have your experimental evidence helped to reject some of them?<br />
<br />
One of the presenters had no idea whatsoever what I was talking about. The other tried to excuse himself, saying that "we should not be so fundamentalist about this". Well, either we are doing science, or we are doing fact-finding or statistics (rather useless and wasteful, without a hypothesis that would define what to look for) - it is nice to be able to take photos of poorly accessible places, and do it on public money, but this is not what science is. His co-author, however, stated that they were discussing hypotheses in their poster - which I could not confirm; indeed, they were discussing issues related with human perception and theory of knowledge and learning, but I could not find any evidence of them trying to falsify some hypothesis that they have formulated. <br />
<br />
One more researcher had a hypothesis formulated in a previous publication by a different group - and then was looking for evidence that conformed to this hypothesis. She went to the same place and collected some different species - which did behave in a similar way in similar conditions. So what? Was she looking for anything new, contradicting to her original hypothesis? Well, she was not. She does not understand what science is.<br />
<br />
Still another (senior) researcher did have some hypotheses formulated in his slides, and mentioned it in the beginning of his talk, alerted by my questions to his colleagues. However, he mentioned no attempts to falsify any of these hypotheses - once more, they were searching for conforming evidence - and wasting public funding. In fact, no hypothesis may be definitely and unquestionably proven; those who think otherwise commit a logical error - and there is no sin in science worse than that. If your logic fails, how can you aspire to be a scientist?<br />
<br />
There were more presentations, discussing new financing opportunities and collaborations that would lead to more public spending, but not science ... <br />
<br />
<h3>
2. Are scientific conferences discussing science?</h3>
<br />
Well, this one has not.<br />
<br />
Firstly, there was not much of science to discuss - what was presented, apart from nice photos from Arctic or Antarctic, was some research, either without an idea (without a specific working hypothesis), or attempting to confirm an idea (a hypothesis). As already noted, no progress of science is possible in either of the two cases. <br />
<br />
Secondly, there were no questions asked about science by the audience - apart from mine. However, I was not given an opportunity to question every presenter - the usual excuse was that they are behind the schedule, and have time for only one question - which was given to someone else. On at least one occasion, the lady who was presiding the session abused of her powers and asked the (only allowed) question herself, instead of giving an opportunity to the audience. The questions asked by other participants were very few, and usually touched either on minor details of the experimental procedures, or on the future plans of the respective research group ...<br />
<br />
Obviously, the conference was supported by the taxpayer money, same as the rest of the "research effort".<br />
<br />
_Igor Khmelinskiihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18352534067660168179noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4583140380583932549.post-76169317191131255792013-06-07T08:16:00.001-07:002013-06-07T08:19:24.204-07:00Comment on science fraud submitted - and rejected<h2>
</h2>
<h2>
Pseudoscience Applied in Study of Pseudoscience </h2>
<br />
Igor Khmelinskii<sup>1</sup>, Peter Stallinga<sup>2</sup><br />
1: University of The Algarve
Faculty of Science and Technology
Centro de Investigação em Química do Algarve
e-mail: ikhmelin@ualg.pt<br />
2: University of The Algarve
Faculty of Science and Technology
Center for Electronics Optoelectronics and Telecommunications
e-mail: pjotr@ualg.pt<br />
<br />
The recent paper by John Cook et al. (2013) analyses the scientific consensus over the anthropogenic global warming. We shall start by noting that the term 'consensus' belongs to politics and not to science. Science has never been done by consensus, it is done by facts. Also, science is not a parliamentary democracy, the scientific truth is not decided by vote; science may occasionally even amount to heresy, as happened, for instance, in the case of Galileo. Therefore, any attempts to divert from facts to anything else, including consensus, make us suspect pseudoscience.<br />
<br />
We shall use the working definition of the scientific method as given by Feynman (1965): "... we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if that law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation with nature, with experiment, or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong." It follows from this definition that we are unable to prove any hypothesis by providing conforming evidence; we are only able to reject a hypothesis by providing contradictory evidence. Reformulating, while we have several alternative hypotheses, each of them explaining the existing experimental evidence, we are unable to favor any of them. Effort should be spent on finding proof to reject some of the alternative hypotheses.
<br />
Note that all of the pro-AGW climate research is, by this definition, undeniably pseudoscientific and the respective researchers are pseudoscientists, for the simple reason that finding proof for any theory, including the AGW hypothesis, is not science. On the other hand, searching for failure of a theory is science. However, AGW has already been falsified many times, more than the single time required by the scientific method and no more research is needed in this field. Researchers are either not doing science (pro-AGW), or go about reinventing the wheel over and over again (anti-AGW). Indeed, Carter (2010) lists eight independent tests for the AGW hypothesis in his Ref. 228, and Khmelinskii et al. (2010) offer another two. The AGW hypothesis fails any and all of these tests, and must therefore be discarded.<br />
<br />
Now, as follows from their conclusions, John Cook et al. (2013) assume that the level of AGW consensus, as derived from published peer-reviewed papers, accurately reflects the opinions of scientists. However, they ignored several (alternative or compatible) hypotheses that may also explain the observed prevalence of pro-AGW views in peer-reviewed literature. The first alternative is the 'verbal diarrhea' hypothesis. Indeed, pseudoscientists, in contradiction with common logics, try to prove the AGW hypothesis by publishing as much confirming data as they can, which causes a proliferation of pro-AGW publications. On the other hand, the scientific approach would require just one paper that falsifies the AGW hypothesis, whereupon the respective scientist could move to another topic of studies. The second alternative is the censorship by biased editors. Indeed, assuming a 1:1 proportion between pro-AGW pseudoscientists and anti-AGW scientists in climate-related research, and the same proportion between scientists (objectively minded) and pseudoscientists (biased) as editors, and also assuming that biased editors reject all of anti-AGW papers where anti-AGW scientists let pass 50% independent of type, we shall immediately obtain a 1:3 proportion between anti-AGW and pro-AGW publications. The third hypothesis is the grant-money corruption. Obviously, researchers need funds for their research, while a publication that demonstrates that the AGW problem does not exist will not look well on their curriculum if they apply for a grant to study climate change. Note that climate-related research and policies are being financed at US$10 billion a year (Carter, 2010, p. 149); this sum alone constitutes a strong temptation to embrace the climate pseudoscience. The fourth hypothesis is the noble-cause corruption (Carter, 2010, Ch. 7). Having ignored the alternative hypotheses, instead of falsifying them by providing contradictory evidence, John Cook et al. (2013) undertook a pseudoscientific statistical study, which does not enable to arrive to any valid conclusions about the real opinions of the scientific community on the AGW problem. As a more important conclusion, no further research that aims to prove or disprove the AGW hypothesis should be financed, as objectively it would be a waste of public funds – this hypothesis has already been falsified.<br />
<br />
REFERENCES
<br />
<br />
[1] J. Cook, D. Nuccitelli, S. A Green, M. Richardson, B. Winkler, R. Painting, R. Way, P. Jacobs, and A. Skuce, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature", Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024 (2013) doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024<br />
[2] R. Feynman "The Character of Physical Law", The M.I.T. Press. (1965), p. 156. ISBN 0-262-56003-8.<br />
[3] R. M. Carter, "Climate: The counter consensus", Stacey International Publishers (2010). ISBN 978-1-906768-29-4.<br />
[4] "Climate Change Policies for the XXIst Century: Mechanisms, Predictions and Recommendations", I. Khmelinskii and P. Stallinga, International Journal of Energy and Environment, 4 (2010) pp. 237-244. Online: http://www.naun.org/journals/ energyenvironment/19-660.pdf and http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.5845<br />
<br />
<h3>
Reply by the editorial office</h3>
Final decision on your article from Environ. Res. Lett. - ERL/476364/COM/310360<br />
...<br />
<pre wrap="">This is not a scientific comment. Comments on ERL articles must present a robust challenge the science or methods in a published article, as this article clearly does not contain this, we should reject the comment as unsuitable.</pre>
... <br />
<br />Igor Khmelinskiihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18352534067660168179noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4583140380583932549.post-40479385061008791912012-11-29T05:40:00.000-08:002012-12-01T06:16:16.626-08:00My official Expert Review of the 5th IPCC Climate Report<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><i>Follows the text of my expert review, as submitted to the IPCC (Reviewer file: 721; submission date: 2012-11-30; Reviewer ID: 1249)</i>.</b></blockquote>
<ol>
<li>Legal Disclaimer. IPCC and/or any of its representatives/ associates/ affiliates/ divisions/ governing bodies/ subsidiaries will not use my name in the IPCC documents and publications, unless they make the entire text of the dissenting minority opinions expressed in my review available to general public, the text of this Disclaimer included. In no case will they mention me as a person who had endorsed or otherwise approved the presently reviewed Draft, unless fraudulent content is removed in the final version of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report.
</li>
<li>This and the following Paragraphs, up to and including Paragraph 8, refer to the entire Chapter 9. Chapter 9 is the key part of the entire Report, as it is supposed to discuss the climate models, which allegedly provide (the only existing) material evidence that the warming observed in the second half of the 20th century is caused by greenhouse gases generated by humanity, which I will henceforth refer to as the "Anthropogenic Global Warming" (AGW) hypothesis. In fact, apart from models, there is no other way to establish cause-and-effect relation between greenhouse gases (most importantly, carbon dioxide) and climate, as we are unable to perform well-controlled experiments on our climate system. Interpretation of historic climate data does not provide any alternative demonstration of such relation, as any such interpretation is based on the same (wrong, as I shall demonstrate) climate models, and thus amounts to circular reasoning.</li>
<li>The Scientific Method had been defined, for example, by Richard Feynman (Feynman, Richard (1965), The Character of Physical Law, Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, ISBN 0-262-56003-8.; p. 156) as follows: "In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience; compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong." As a consequence of this definition, a single piece of contradictory evidence is sufficient to reject a hypothesis, whereas no amount of corroborating evidence may prove or confirm a hypothesis - by stating otherwise one would commit a logical fallacy called "affirming the consequent/denying the antecedent" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy). The logical fallacy of this Chapter is in making the (implicit and ever present in the Report) statement that it is the anthropogenically produced carbon dioxide that is causing the global warming, based on the knowledge that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases affect climate to some extent. In other words, they accept the AGW hypothesis as final truth, without even trying to use the Scientific Method and test the hypothesis. By doing that, this key Chapter and the entire Report assume a non-scientific dogmatic approach, as all of the previous Reports uniformly do, which necessarily and inevitably produces non-scientific (and, as I shall demonstrate, fraudulent) conclusions.</li>
<li>In effect, Chapter 9 failed to address two key questions, which must be addressed before one tries using the models for understanding present and future climate: (1) Do the models represent the physics of our terrestrial climate system correctly? (with the emphasis on "correctly") (2) Have the predictions made by these same (or slightly modified) models five, ten or fifteen years ago become true? These should be the questions to ask before one tries making any climate predictions and/or policy recommendations based on the models. I shall address these questions in paragraphs 5, 6, and 7, and 8, respectively.</li>
<li>I will discuss only two of the publications that allow us to reject the AGW hypothesis, although, according to Paragraph 3, a single piece of contradictory evidence is sufficient to reject a hypothesis. The first one is the paper by Lindzen and Choi ("On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data", R. Lindzen, Y.-S. Choi, Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, 2009, pp. L16705. doi:10.1029/2009GL039628.). These authors demonstrate in their Fig. 2 and in the rest of the paper that the IPCC climate models distort the essential physics of the terrestrial climate system. Indeed, all of the climate models produce a reduction in the outgoing infra-red radiation upon an increase in surface temperature on Earth, whereas the experimental results, extracted from satellite data, evidence an increase in the outgoing infra-red radiation, in the same conditions. Therefore, our terrestrial climate system behaves as if it were in a stable state of equilibrium: indeed, its behaviour corresponds to the Le Chatelier's principle (the system always reacts to any change in such a way that the externally imposed change is partially compensated; see, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Chatelier%27s_principle), whereas the climate models behave like an unstable system, amplifying all and every temperature change. We therefore see that the models that reproduce the conditions and conclusions of the AGW hypothesis do so at the cost of distorting essential physics of the terrestrial climate system. Therefore, the AGW hypothesis is wrong, as it has not been reproduced in models describing the climate physics correctly. Moreover, the AGW hypothesis can not be reproduced in models describing climate physics correctly, as it is impossible to attribute the warming of the 20th century to carbon dioxide based on correct models. The important conclusion that necessarily and inevitably follows from this paper is that the AGW hypothesis is wrong, as it is only viable in the virtual reality of the IPCC climate models, fundamentally different from the physical reality of the terrestrial climate system. </li>
<li>The second publication I will discuss is the one by Khmelinskii and Stallinga (“Climate Change in the XXIst Century: Mechanisms and Predictions”, I. Khmelinskii and P. Stallinga, in Proceedings of the 6th IASME / WSEAS International Conference on ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT (EE '11), Cambridge, UK, February 20-25, 2011, eds. Z. Bojkovic et al., RECENT RESEARCHES in ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT, WSEAS Press, 2011, ISSN: 1792-8230; ISBN: 978-960-474-274-5, pp. 26-31. Available: http://www.wseas.us/e-library/conferences/2011/Cambridge/EE/EE-02.pdf). These authors in their Fig. 1 and in the text of the paper analyze the recent history of the global average Sea Surface Temperature (SST) and compare it to the recent history of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, in an attempt to find the signature of the AGW in the SST data. In fact, they could find no such signature, due to the fact that human carbon dioxide emissions started growing exponentially in the second half of the 20th century, whereas SST had two (virtually identical) growth periods, one of which in the first half of the 20th century, when little or no excess carbon dioxide had been liberated into the atmosphere by humanity. These authors therefore conclude that the AGW hypothesis has to be rejected, based on the recent SST history. Note that SST is a better indicator of the climate evolution than the global average temperature, being unaffected by interfering factors such as the Urban Heat Island effect. The latter distorts climate data gathered on the continents, with additional uncertainty introduced by the corrections made to compensate for it.</li>
<li>In Paragraphs 5 and 6 I discussed two papers, each of the two providing sufficient grounds to reject the AGW hypothesis. I shall not discuss any further evidence against the AGW hypothesis, considering it rejected, according to Feynman's definition presented in Paragraph 3. Additionally, I conclude that the IPCC climate models are wrong, as they obviously distort the essential climate physics, and therefore any and all of their results and conclusions should be expressly and unconditionally rejected and disregarded in their entirety. </li>
<li>It is well known that there has been no global warming for the last 15 years, contrary to the IPCC predictions produced by IPCC climate models for the same period of time. Moreover, we have reasons to believe (see, for example, H. Abdussamatov, 2008, The Sun defines the Climate, http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/abduss_nkj_2009.pdf) that instead of the "global warming" we are in for a new Little Ice Age, already in progress, which will be similar to the Maunder minimum of solar activity as regards temperatures and other climate-related consequences. Therefore, the IPCC models have not (because they distort climate physics) and will not (for the same reason, and also because they neglect solar change) predict future climate, and thus should be rejected and disregarded, as I have obtained negative answers for the two key questions of Paragraph 4. </li>
<li>This paragraph refers to the entire Chapter 2. Chapter 2 reviews some of the published information on the topic "Atmosphere and Surface". However, the motivation for the reviewed research effort and the logic behind it is more often fraudulent than not, as the respective research frequently follows the pseudo-scientific reasoning that "more corroborating evidence produces a stronger case for the AGW hypothesis". In fact, nothing can be further from the truth, as shown in my Paragraph 3. Indeed, no amount of corroborating evidence can prove a hypothesis, while a single piece of contradictory evidence is sufficient to reject a hypothesis. In effect, the only (dubiously) useful result of this research effort is the "general progress of science", resulting from wasteful usage of public money on climate studies, where no real problem requiring study may be found. Even the PhD degrees earned as a result of such research are of dubious (in the very least) value, as we are producing more pseudo-scientists certified as scientists, in addition to the already existing pseudo-scientists. Research based on the AGW hypothesis, known to be wrong, may provide no valid scientific results, as its conclusions are already known before the research even began - these conclusions being "AGW is happening, and we are to blame for it". Additionally, the data interpretation in the publications is frequently done based on the same climate models, which are demonstrably wrong (as shown in my Paragraphs 2 to 8), and therefore constitutes a fraud. </li>
<li>This paragraph refers to the entire Chapter 3. Chapter 3 reviews some of the published information on the topic "Ocean". However, the motivation for the reviewed research effort and the logic behind it is more often fraudulent than not, as the respective research frequently follows the pseudo-scientific reasoning that "more corroborating evidence produces a stronger case for the AGW hypothesis". In fact, nothing can be further from the truth, as shown in my Paragraph 3. Indeed, no amount of corroborating evidence can prove a hypothesis, while a single piece of contradictory evidence is sufficient to reject a hypothesis. In effect, the only (dubiously) useful result of this research effort is the "general progress of science", resulting from wasteful usage of public money on climate studies, where no real problem requiring study may be found. Even the PhD degrees earned as a result of such research are of dubious (in the very least) value, as we are producing more pseudo-scientists certified as scientists, in addition to the already existing pseudo-scientists. Research based on the AGW hypothesis, known to be wrong, may provide no valid scientific results, as its conclusions are already known before the research even began - these conclusions being "AGW is happening, and we are to blame for it". Additionally, the data interpretation in the publications is frequently done based on the same climate models, which are demonstrably wrong (as shown in my Paragraphs 2 to 8), and therefore constitutes a fraud.</li>
<li>This paragraph refers to the entire Chapter 4. Chapter 4 reviews some of the published information on the topic "Cryosphere". However, the motivation for the reviewed research effort and the logic behind it is more often fraudulent than not, as the respective research frequently follows the pseudo-scientific reasoning that "more corroborating evidence produces a stronger case for the AGW hypothesis". In fact, nothing can be further from the truth, as shown in my Paragraph 3. Indeed, no amount of corroborating evidence can prove a hypothesis, while a single piece of contradictory evidence is sufficient to reject a hypothesis. In effect, the only (dubiously) useful result of this research effort is the "general progress of science", resulting from wasteful usage of public money on climate studies, where no real problem requiring study may be found. Even the PhD degrees earned as a result of such research are of dubious (in the very least) value, as we are producing more pseudo-scientists certified as scientists, in addition to the already existing pseudo-scientists. Research based on the AGW hypothesis, known to be wrong, may provide no valid scientific results, as its conclusions are already known before the research even began - these conclusions being "AGW is happening, and we are to blame for it". Additionally, the data interpretation in the publications is frequently done based on the same climate models, which are demonstrably wrong (as shown in my Paragraphs 2 to 8), and therefore constitutes a fraud.</li>
<li>This paragraph refers to the entire Chapter 5. Chapter 5 reviews some of the published information on the topic "Paleoclimate Archives". However, the motivation for the reviewed research effort and the logic behind it is more often fraudulent than not, as the respective research frequently follows the pseudo-scientific reasoning that "more corroborating evidence produces a stronger case for the AGW hypothesis". In fact, nothing can be further from the truth, as shown in our my 3. Indeed, no amount of corroborating evidence can prove a hypothesis, while a single piece of contradictory evidence is sufficient to reject a hypothesis. In effect, the only (dubiously) useful result of this research effort is the "general progress of science", resulting from wasteful usage of public money on climate studies, where no real problem requiring study may be found. Even the PhD degrees earned as a result of such research are of dubious (in the very least) value, as we are producing more pseudo-scientists certified as scientists, in addition to the already existing pseudo-scientists. Research based on the AGW hypothesis, known to be wrong, may provide no valid scientific results, as its conclusions are already known before the research even began - these conclusions being "AGW is happening, and we are to blame for it". Additionally, the data interpretation in the publications is frequently done based on the same climate models, which are demonstrably wrong (as shown in my Paragraphs 2 to 8), and therefore constitutes a fraud.</li>
<li>This paragraph refers to the entire Chapter 6. Chapter 6 reviews some of the published information on the topic "Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles". However, the motivation for the reviewed research effort and the logic behind it is more often fraudulent than not, as the respective research frequently follows the pseudo-scientific reasoning that "more corroborating evidence produces a stronger case for the AGW hypothesis". In fact, nothing can be further from the truth, as shown in my Paragraph 3. Indeed, no amount of corroborating evidence can prove a hypothesis, while a single piece of contradictory evidence is sufficient to reject a hypothesis. In effect, the only (dubiously) useful result of this research effort is the "general progress of science", resulting from wasteful usage of public money on climate studies, where no real problem requiring study may be found. Even the PhD degrees earned as a result of such research are of dubious (in the very least) value, as we are producing more pseudo-scientists certified as scientists, in addition to the already existing pseudo-scientists. Research based on the AGW hypothesis, known to be wrong, may provide no valid scientific results, as its conclusions are already known before the research even began - these conclusions being "AGW is happening, and we are to blame for it". Additionally, the data interpretation in the publications is frequently done based on the same climate models, which are demonstrably wrong (as shown in my Paragraphs 2 to 8), and therefore constitutes a fraud.</li>
<li>This paragraph refers to the entire Chapter 7. Chapter 7 reviews some of the published information on the topic "Clouds and Aerosols". However, the motivation for the reviewed research effort and the logic behind it is more often fraudulent than not, as the respective research frequently follows the pseudo-scientific reasoning that "more corroborating evidence produces a stronger case for the AGW hypothesis". In fact, nothing can be further from the truth, as shown in my Paragraph 3. Indeed, no amount of corroborating evidence can prove a hypothesis, while a single piece of contradictory evidence is sufficient to reject a hypothesis. In effect, the only (dubiously) useful result of this research effort is the "general progress of science", resulting from wasteful usage of public money on climate studies, where no real problem requiring study may be found. Even the PhD degrees earned as a result of such research are of dubious (in the very least) value, as we are producing more pseudo-scientists certified as scientists, in addition to the already existing pseudo-scientists. Research based on the AGW hypothesis, known to be wrong, may provide no valid scientific results, as its conclusions are already known before the research even began - these conclusions being "AGW is happening, and we are to blame for it". Additionally, the data interpretation in the publications is frequently done based on the same climate models, which are demonstrably wrong (as shown in my Paragraphs 2 to 8), and therefore constitutes a fraud.</li>
<li>This paragraph refers to the entire Chapter 8. Chapter 8 reviews some of the published information on the topic "Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing". However, the motivation for the reviewed research effort and the logic behind it is more often fraudulent than not, as the respective research frequently follows the pseudo-scientific reasoning that "more corroborating evidence produces a stronger case for the AGW hypothesis". In fact, nothing can be further from the truth, as shown in my Paragraph 3. Indeed, no amount of corroborating evidence can prove a hypothesis, while a single piece of contradictory evidence is sufficient to reject a hypothesis. In effect, the only (dubiously) useful result of this research effort is the "general progress of science", resulting from wasteful usage of public money on climate studies, where no real problem requiring study may be found. Even the PhD degrees earned as a result of such research are of dubious (in the very least) value, as we are producing more pseudo-scientists certified as scientists, in addition to the already existing pseudo-scientists. Research based on the AGW hypothesis, known to be wrong, may provide no valid scientific results, as its conclusions are already known before the research even began - these conclusions being "AGW is happening, and we are to blame for it". Additionally, the data interpretation in the publications is frequently done based on the same climate models, which are demonstrably wrong (as shown in my Paragraphs 2 to 8), and therefore constitutes a fraud.</li>
<li>This paragraph refers to the entire Chapter 10. Chapter 10 reviews some of the published information on the topic "Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional". However, the motivation for the reviewed research effort and the logic behind it is more often fraudulent than not, as the respective research frequently follows the pseudo-scientific reasoning that "more corroborating evidence produces a stronger case for the AGW hypothesis". In fact, nothing can be further from the truth, as shown in my Paragraph 3. Indeed, no amount of corroborating evidence can prove a hypothesis, while a single piece of contradictory evidence is sufficient to reject a hypothesis. In effect, the only (dubiously) useful result of this research effort is the "general progress of science", resulting from wasteful usage of public money on climate studies, where no real problem requiring study may be found. Even the PhD degrees earned as a result of such research are of dubious (in the very least) value, as we are producing more pseudo-scientists certified as scientists, in addition to the already existing pseudo-scientists. Research based on the AGW hypothesis, known to be wrong, may provide no valid scientific results, as its conclusions are already known before the research even began - these conclusions being "AGW is happening, and we are to blame for it". Additionally, the data interpretation in the publications is exclusively done based on the same climate models, which are demonstrably wrong (as shown in my Paragraphs 2 to 8), and therefore constitutes a fraud.</li>
<li>This paragraph refers to the entire Chapter 11. Chapter 11 reviews some of the published information on the topic "Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability". These projections and predictions are based exclusively on the same IPCC climate models, which are demonstrably wrong (as shown in my Paragraphs 2 to 8), and therefore constitute a fraud.</li>
<li>This paragraph refers to the entire Chapter 12. Chapter 12 reviews some of the published information on the topic "Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility". The projections, predictions and scenarios discussed here are based exclusively on the same IPCC climate models, which are demonstrably wrong (as shown in my Paragraphs 2 to 8), and therefore constitute a fraud.</li>
<li>This paragraph refers to the entire Chapter 13. Chapter 13 reviews some of the published information on the topic "Sea Level Change". However, the motivation for the reviewed research effort and the logic behind it is more often fraudulent than not, as the respective research frequently follows the pseudo-scientific reasoning that "more corroborating evidence produces a stronger case for the AGW hypothesis". In fact, nothing can be further from the truth, as shown in my Paragraph 3. Indeed, no amount of corroborating evidence can prove a hypothesis, while a single piece of contradictory evidence is sufficient to reject a hypothesis. In effect, the only (dubiously) useful result of this research effort is the "general progress of science", resulting from wasteful usage of public money on climate studies, where no real problem requiring study may be found. Even the PhD degrees earned as a result of such research are of dubious (in the very least) value, as we are producing more pseudo-scientists certified as scientists, in addition to the already existing pseudo-scientists. Research based on the AGW hypothesis, known to be wrong, may provide no valid scientific results, as its conclusions are already known before the research even began - these conclusions being "AGW is happening, and we are to blame for it". Additionally, data interpretation and projections, predictions and scenarios are based exclusively on the same IPCC climate models, which are demonstrably wrong (as shown in my Paragraphs 2 to 8), and therefore constitute a fraud.</li>
<li>This paragraph refers to the entire Chapter 14. Chapter 14 reviews some of the published information on the topic "Climate Phenomena and their Relevance for Future Regional Climate Change". However, the motivation for the reviewed research effort and the logic behind it is more often fraudulent than not, as the respective research frequently follows the pseudo-scientific reasoning that "more corroborating evidence produces a stronger case for the AGW hypothesis". In fact, nothing can be further from the truth, as shown in my Paragraph 3. Indeed, no amount of corroborating evidence can prove a hypothesis, while a single piece of contradictory evidence is sufficient to reject a hypothesis. In effect, the only (dubiously) useful result of this research effort is the "general progress of science", resulting from wasteful usage of public money on climate studies, where no real problem requiring study may be found. Even the PhD degrees earned as a result of such research are of dubious (in the very least) value, as we are producing more pseudo-scientists certified as scientists, in addition to the already existing pseudo-scientists. Research based on the AGW hypothesis, known to be wrong, may provide no valid scientific results, as its conclusions are already known before the research even began - these conclusions being "AGW is happening, and we are to blame for it". Additionally, data interpretation and projections, predictions and scenarios are based exclusively on the same IPCC climate models, which are demonstrably wrong (as shown in my Paragraphs 2 to 8), and therefore constitute a fraud.</li>
<li>This paragraph refers to the entire "Summary for the policy makers". As detailed above, the Report is built from fraudulent pseudo-scientific constructs based on the AGW dogma, containing no science. Therefore, any conclusions and recommendations presented in this chapter have no scientific backing, and should be expressly ignored. The corrected Summary for policy makers should thus read "There is nothing wrong with our climate. We have no climate problem, and need no solutions for this climate problem. All of the currently implemented solutions to the alleged climate problem should be revoked, effective immediately. We are sorry for defrauding the general public in the previous Reports we have produced so far."</li>
<li>This paragraph refers to the entire Report. As amply demonstrated above, the current draft Report is a fraudulent pseudo-scientific construct based on the AGW dogma, adopted uncritically and never questioned. Its climate projections and predictions have no scientific backing and can't be used as a justification for any type of public policies. Similarly, all of the public policies implemented as the result of previous Reports have no scientific backing and should be immediately and entirely revoked and discontinued.</li>
<li>This paragraph refers to the entire Report. The body of the research that the Report pseudo-scientifically presents as "proof" of the AGW hypothesis is constituted by the primary and direct fraud of the IPCC climate models and general research approach, and by the secondary and indirect fraud of the most of the remaining research that uses these models in the interpretation of climate data, for climate predictions, and in discussing development scenarios for the humanity and for the natural systems. The only research that may be valid as regards to facts (but never as regards their interpretation, because the interpretation is based on fundamentally wrong models) is the research studying current consequences of the climate change. However, this research is non-scientific in its motivation, aiming to provide "proof" for the AGW hypothesis by presenting corroborating evidence (which is a logically impossible task - see Paragraph 3), and largely irrelevant. That because no action humanity might feasibly take could revert the natural phenomena that we are not the cause of in the first place. The Report and the body of research it reviews are therefore a waste of public funds and a scientific fraud.</li>
<li>This paragraph refers to the entire report, containing final notes for the reader who is not well-versed in the philosophy of science, and should be read in conjunction with all of the previous paragraphs of my Review. Note that I did not need to read the entire draft Report, nor enter into details of each Chapter, in order to understand whether or not the Report is scientifically valid. This is because I am able to produce the judgement of the fraudulent character of this and other previous Climate Reports based on their failure to implement the Scientific Method and question the AGW hypothesis. The AGW hypothesis is commonly implemented in the form of one or more climate models that are being used to interpret current and past experimental results and make predictions about future climate. In order to attribute the recent global warming to greenhouse gas emissions, and thus to human activities, these models have been specifically tuned, by introducing positive climate feedbacks. The draft Report discusses climate models in its Chapter 9, therefore Chapter 9 would be the logical place to implement the Scientific Method and question the validity of the climate models and thus the validity of the AGW hypothesis. Reading through Chapter 9 and its list of references, I find that no such questioning had been done, and no papers that question the validity of climate models have been discussed. By failing to implement the Scientific Method, the authors of Chapter 9 have confirmed their status of pseudo-scientists, having transformed their Chapter into an exercise in dogmatic propaganda. Its fraudulent character is evident from the ease with which these authors could have rejected the AGW hypothesis, same as I had in the present Review. Thus, based on the fraudulent science of Chapter 9, the entire Climate Report looses any connection to the objective reality, becoming a pseudo-scientific construct based on the AGW dogma. Indeed, there may be no Science if one chooses to ignore the Scientific Method, as the Report authors do. Without the Scientific Method, they are limited to the pseudo-scientific and logically faulty search of evidence that "confirms" their AGW hypothesis, stalling the scientific progress and insulting the general public in their expectations of obtaining scientifically valid climate predictions, instead of the climate fraud that over the years of its existence has been, and now once more is being, produced by the IPCC. </li>
</ol>
Igor Khmelinskiihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18352534067660168179noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4583140380583932549.post-80509970354388732112012-11-04T03:09:00.001-08:002012-11-04T07:13:45.522-08:00A despendiosa Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia<br />
<br />
A Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT) <a href="http://www.umic.pt/images/stories/publicacoes6/Reforma%20do%20ensino%20superior%202005-2011%20-%20versao%20final%20rev%2018jun2011.pdf" target="_blank">distribui anualmente</a> (veja p. 50 do documento referenciado) cerca de 500 milhões de euros de financiamento. Entretanto, emprega cerca de 300 <a href="http://www.fct.pt/docs/Mapa_de_Pessoal_2012_landscape.pdf" target="_blank">trabalhadores </a>e estagiários. Contas feitas, são 1,7 milhões de euros por trabalhador.<br />
<br />
Entretanto, o <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070127182619/http://www.intas.be/" target="_blank">projecto INTAS</a>, que foi gerido por apenas 6 pessoas, tinha distribuído, na média, <a href="http://www.project-bridge.eu/datoteke/Publications/ANALYSES%20OF%20EU%20%20PARTNER%20COUNTRIES%20RELATIONS.pdf" target="_blank">20 milhões de euros anualmente</a>, entre 1993 e 2003. Assim, geriu 3,3 milhões de euros por trabalhador.<br />
<br />
Desta forma, a FCT <b>tem que despedir metade de pessoal empregado</b>, para entrar nos padrões de boas práticas internacionais.<br />
<br />
Anteriormente, vimos que a TAP emprega o dobro da média europeia, por cada avião que voa.<br />
<br />
Conclusão do fundo: o aparelho central do Estado Português pode ser reduzido a 50% do existente, sem minimamente comprometer o seu funcionamento.Igor Khmelinskiihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18352534067660168179noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4583140380583932549.post-27814269230597827922012-10-28T10:37:00.000-07:002012-10-29T02:07:37.346-07:00Ocean acidification - is it a problem?<br />
<br />
<span class="shortened-text">Let us look at hard facts.<br /><br />One
hard fact is that in the past Earth had much higher CO<sub>2</sub> concentrations
in the atmosphere, which had not reduced biodiversity - on the contrary,
biodiversity had increased - namely, hard corals came into existence in
one of such periods, and soft corals in another.<br /><br />Another hard
fact is that for significant "acidification" to take place in nature,
the dissolved acidic </span><span class="shortened-text">CO<sub>2</sub></span><span class="shortened-text"> in the oceans should increase, without being
compensated by the basicity of the dissolved calcium (and magnesium)
ions. In practice, this can never happen for a very simple reason - the </span><span class="shortened-text">CO<sub>2</sub></span><span class="shortened-text">
concentrations are not growing quickly enough for that. <br /><br />Indeed,
assuming that we continue burning as much fossil fuels as we want, then
we expect the atmospheric </span><span class="shortened-text">CO<sub>2</sub></span><span class="shortened-text"> concentrations to double by 2100, with a
characteristic time of about 150 years. On the other hand, the
characteristic mixing time of the upper ocean is about 20 years, while
the characteristic pH equilibration time of the shallow-water
biologically productive zones inhabited by calcifying biota is about 10
years. The latter time was estimated based on the annual volume of the river
runoff and the amount of seawater existing in the coastal shallow-water
zones. These numbers tell us that calcium (+magnesium) will be
</span><span class="shortened-text">perfectly cap</span><span class="shortened-text">able of accompanying the increasing concentrations of carbonate ions,
maintaining the pH of the seawater fairly constant. In fact, it will
never change by much more than it has already changed during the last
century (0.1 pH), as the entire process has already achieved steady
rates in some 70 years since it had started (70 years is much more than
20 years, mathematically speaking, therefore the non-steady initial kinetic phase has already finished).</span><br />
<br />
<span class="shortened-text">There is an additional factor that helps to equilibrate carbonate with calcium (+magnesium), namely the chemical equilibrium. We know that the solubility of acidic carbon dioxide in pure water is lower than its solubility in water containing basic calcium (and magnesium) ions, therefore additional </span><span class="shortened-text">CO<sub>2</sub></span><span class="shortened-text"> will actually dissolve in seawater <i>after </i>it acquires additional amounts of basicity, brought in by the river runoff from the continents, and not <i>before</i>. This factor further reduces the possible pH changes of the seawater. <br /><br />As regards calcifying biota, it will certainly benefit from the increased dissolved carbonate
and dissolved calcium (+magnesium), in the same way as plants benefit
from increased atmospheric </span><span class="shortened-text">CO<sub>2</sub></span><span class="shortened-text">. More </span><span class="shortened-text">CO<sub>2</sub></span> implies higher agricultural yields and higher seafood yields, all in benefit of humanity. <br />
<span class="shortened-text"><br />In two words: ocean acidification
is a scam, same as the anthropogenic global warming. This hoax, however, is providing for thousands of careers of pseudo-scientists who make their living of studying nonexistent problems, using our tax money to defraud us and earn grants and distinctions. </span><br />
<br />
<span class="shortened-text">Ocean acidification is a moral and a criminal problem, rather than an environmental problem. Environmentally, it is not a problem, and will never become a problem. </span><br />
<span class="shortened-text"><br /></span>Igor Khmelinskiihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18352534067660168179noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4583140380583932549.post-45390235679422180052012-10-20T14:10:00.001-07:002012-10-24T14:41:51.555-07:00Methanol generated from aspartame - is it dangerous?<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.inchem.org/documents/pims/chemical/pim335.htm#7.2.5" target="_blank">International official documents</a> recommend that concentration of methanol in food should not exceed 8 ppm (parts per million). Given the <a href="http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080309235329AAUmBqb" target="_blank">average annual food consumption</a> of some 700 kg per person, this amounts to 15 mg of methanol deemed safe to ingest daily. On the other hand, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy#Intake" target="_blank">safe daily intake of aspartame</a> had been defined at about 50 mg/kg, or 3500 mg per 70 kg adult.<br />
<br />
Now we go to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame" target="_blank">formula of aspartame</a>, in order to deduce the amount of methanol that will be generated in our body by 3500 mg of aspartame. A simple stoichiometric calculation tells us that 3500 mg of aspartame, upon hydrolysis in our stomach and guts, will produce 380 mg of methanol. This value <b>exceeds by 2500% </b>the safe levels for methanol ingestion.<br />
<br />
This simple calculation shows that the <b>"safe" levels of aspartame consumption had been grossly overestimated</b>, and should be reduced by at least a factor of 100. Note that we need no clinical tests to come to this conclusion, our knowledge of chemistry has been more than sufficient. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Baseline: if you care about your health, stay away from artificial sweeteners, "diet" drinks and such like. Otherwise, you are subjecting yourself to inadmissible levels of methanol.</blockquote>
Igor Khmelinskiihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18352534067660168179noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4583140380583932549.post-28856967352234859642012-10-10T12:25:00.004-07:002012-10-16T15:53:56.356-07:00Défice Tarifário e Energias Renováveis<br />
<br />
A complementar <a href="http://clima-virtual-vs-real.blogspot.pt/2010/10/as-consequencias-economicas-de-energias.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">o meu post antigo</a>: <br />
<br />
Hoje foi anunciada na comunicação social a existência de um "défice tarifário", no valor de <b>2700 milhões de euros</b>, dos consumidores de electricidade, aos produtores de electricidade. Um consumidor doméstico, na média, fica a dever um montante à volta de 500 euros, já que são os consumidores domésticos que pagam a factura das renováveis. Por outras palavras, as extravagâncias das energias renováveis estão a ser pagas, durante anos, pelos empréstimos bancários, em vez das tarifas de electricidade. Ou seja, o consumidor vai acabar por pagar tudo o que deve, com aumentos das tarifas de electricidade, e ainda os juros devidos aos bancos ...<br />
<br />
Ora, as políticas governativas continuam a ser motivados pelo moral dum aldrabão: " ... esperemos que o povo não note que está a ser roubado ..." <br />
<br />
Preparem-se: as tarifas de electricidade, <i><b>para cumprirmos as metas verdes</b></i>, terão que subir 200%. Na Alemanha, <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/consumers-bear-brunt-of-german-switch-to-renewable-energies-a-861415.html" target="_blank">os preços da electricidade vão subir 50% já em 2013</a>, graças aos moinhos de vento.Igor Khmelinskiihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18352534067660168179noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4583140380583932549.post-38243947436714739022012-09-11T12:51:00.009-07:002012-09-11T13:12:59.565-07:00Science: Food prices are pushed up by Biofuels<br />
<br />
To complement <a href="http://clima-virtual-vs-real.blogspot.pt/2011/02/verde-morte-green-death.html" target="_blank">my earlier post</a>, here is the plot derived from a model that deduces world food prices from the behaviour of speculators and, most importantly, from <b>the amount of corn ethanol produced </b>in the US, the major corn exporter and biofuel producer.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlWB0-REjwiENiwEzZ5XfawUF15VD0sgfNljKaFQcCbM7ajwEAaMEBD_Hxr0dGP-kxn10xBbzuCImA4AmNyHmyiEZ11wk2yjYTl4Juxhu78W1X9Oj-J0yW5JwLghjdjqqrNEtXMZp6w6eq/s1600/food_spec_2_2012_pic.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="248" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlWB0-REjwiENiwEzZ5XfawUF15VD0sgfNljKaFQcCbM7ajwEAaMEBD_Hxr0dGP-kxn10xBbzuCImA4AmNyHmyiEZ11wk2yjYTl4Juxhu78W1X9Oj-J0yW5JwLghjdjqqrNEtXMZp6w6eq/s400/food_spec_2_2012_pic.png" width="400" /></a></div><br />
The two papers presenting the original research results may be consulted <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4859" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here (the model)</a>, and <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.1313" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here (additional verification of the model)</a> - you can download the respective PDF files free of charge. The plot was taken from the second paper.<br />
<br />
The plot shows model results (two different versions of the model; in green and red), compared to the actual evolution of the food price index, in blue. Note an excellent agreement between the real-world data and the model predictions. The dashed blue line shows the food price evolution if we remove the contribution of the speculators/investors to the price evolution - the equilibrium model. The action of speculators produces food price peaks. Such peaks have appeared in 2008 and 2011, with a new peak predicted for 2013-2014. <br />
<br />
Therefore, now we have conclusive evidence that green fuel production is in fact driving the food prices up, causing additional deaths from starvation in poor nations, or the green genocide. Note that the number of deaths by starvation is directly proportional to the food price index.<b> </b><b>Green fuels are immoral and criminal. </b><b><br />
</b>Igor Khmelinskiihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18352534067660168179noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4583140380583932549.post-64650185911822811122012-09-10T04:03:00.009-07:002012-09-11T13:25:09.280-07:00Positive feedback between Food and Energy prices <br />
<br />
The plot below compares the evolution of the monthly Food Price Index to that of the monthly Energy Price Index. The data were taken from the site<a href="http://www.indexmundi.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Index Mundi</a>. Descriptions:<br />
<ul><li>Commodity Food Price Index, 2005 = 100, includes Cereal, Vegetable Oils, Meat, Seafood, Sugar, Bananas, and Oranges Price Indices</li>
<li>Commodity Fuel (energy) Index, 2005 = 100, includes Crude oil (petroleum), Natural Gas, and Coal Price Indices </li>
</ul><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimiteXQAF6iznMkdKkkr4wVSRzTJz3MVOutX2Lk5Gm2ZgPHk6rguiuwWAoFl15lJMXvFbqFicfpGohdSwCxyvIj6mrq1IYgO03R8KtG0qmvWYMTGkxfwZI1K3O_dwWxpvqJTYf3MVcjp7d/s1600/Slide_5_energy_food.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimiteXQAF6iznMkdKkkr4wVSRzTJz3MVOutX2Lk5Gm2ZgPHk6rguiuwWAoFl15lJMXvFbqFicfpGohdSwCxyvIj6mrq1IYgO03R8KtG0qmvWYMTGkxfwZI1K3O_dwWxpvqJTYf3MVcjp7d/s400/Slide_5_energy_food.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Food price index compared to Energy price index</td></tr>
</tbody></table>It is well known that agricultural production consumes large amounts of energy, therefore energy price constitutes a large fraction of food prices. Note excellent correlations between variations of the two indices.<br />
<br />
We also note that since around the year 2000, when the drive for renewable energies and green fuels started on a large scale, both energy and food prices are following an exponentially growing trend. The growth in energy prices is caused by various political measures aimed at introducing renewable energies, which are much more expensive (200% to 900% difference) and have to be heavily subsidized. This growth automatically drives the food prices up. The production of green fuels, which in some cases uses up to 25% of the currently produced foods, is another factor that is driving up the food prices, by increasing demand. The positive feedback mechanism between food and energy prices acts via green fuels: more expensive foods result in more expensive green fuels, which in turn make foods even more expensive. This positive feedback acts since the year 2000.<br />
<br />
Complementing our reasoning presented <a href="http://clima-virtual-vs-real.blogspot.pt/2011/02/verde-morte-green-death.html" target="_blank">in an earlier post</a>, it is <b>not only green fuels that kill people by starvation, but also the renewable energies</b>. What we need is cheaper energy and cheaper food, and not the other way round. Therefore, recalling our posts on climate issues that demonstrate the lack of ecological justification for renewable energies and green fuels, the sooner we drop these useless projects, the lower will be the number of people dead from starvation in African and other poor nations. Igor Khmelinskiihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18352534067660168179noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4583140380583932549.post-85723011732911121692012-07-01T05:08:00.003-07:002012-07-01T05:13:43.818-07:00Crise de Dívida Pública e o Ministério Público<blockquote class="tr_bq"> </blockquote>Surpreendentemente, ninguém até agora perguntou, por que razão os Ministros de Economia e os governos tenham proposto, e a Assembleia da Republica aceite, durante 15 anos, os orçamentos deficitários? Ora uma dona de casa consegue perceber, que não se pode pedir dinheiro emprestado para financiar os gastos correntes, mas os srs. políticos, altamente qualificados, não conseguem perceber o mesmo?! Incompetentes ou mal intencionados? Devem ser julgados pelo crime de gestão danosa, já que o dolo é bem evidente - não podiam não saber o que estavam a fazer.<br />
Onde é que está o Ministério Público?Igor Khmelinskiihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18352534067660168179noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4583140380583932549.post-13247259257564825022012-06-30T20:36:00.007-07:002012-09-11T13:25:48.390-07:00Scientific Method against the Anthropogenic Global Warming Scam<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">A simple way to talk about complex issues.</blockquote>We start with the definition of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Scientific Method</a>. This particular version belongs to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Richard Feynman</a> (1918-1988): <b>"In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience; compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong."</b> An important consequence of this definition is that a single piece of contradicting evidence is sufficient for a hypothesis to be rejected, on the other hand, no amount of non-contradicting evidence may confirm or prove a hypothesis. Indeed, there always may be alternative hypotheses, some of them completely unknown to us, due to limitations of both our current knowledge and our thinking.<br />
<br />
Let us now assume, <i>as a hypothesis</i>, calling it <b>Hypothesis A</b>, that the IPCC climate models, which attribute the recent warming of climate to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide, correctly describe the properties of our terrestrial climate system. To reject this hypothesis, we need at least one piece of contradicting experimental evidence. Such evidence had been provided in the paper by<a href="http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> R. Lindzen and Y.-S. Choi, "On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data"</a>, Geophys. Res. Lett. vol. 36, pp. L16705, 2009.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSYL-f4TOFc-JnC3UAa0GLbnLrIkeBB1aOLfzNg-AeMAdkDVZXGUaQpeSaWq3rDc1iGdPP_t_FlBHD7VUFJq_gfta_n1xgEM8IyvR0_Kg6U-n6Sem3tNPIOnwVIPChLWzE7woD1NQ8VDxu/s1600/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009_Page_3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="313" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSYL-f4TOFc-JnC3UAa0GLbnLrIkeBB1aOLfzNg-AeMAdkDVZXGUaQpeSaWq3rDc1iGdPP_t_FlBHD7VUFJq_gfta_n1xgEM8IyvR0_Kg6U-n6Sem3tNPIOnwVIPChLWzE7woD1NQ8VDxu/s400/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009_Page_3.png" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><br />
The above Figure from their paper (their Fig. 2) compares the experimental response of the climate system (the amount of infra-red and visible radiation escaping from Earth to outer space) to the increase in surface temperature, as measured by the ERBE satellite, the upper left plot (marked ERBE), to the responses of the eleven different IPCC climate models (the remaining plots, marked by abbreviations of the respective models). As we see, all of the models respond in the wrong way, opposite to the real climate system. We have to conclude that our <b>Hypothesis A</b> is incorrect; in other words, <i>the IPCC climate models do not describe the climate system in an appropriate way</i>. One piece of evidence we have shown is sufficient for the conclusion we made, the conclusion being necessary and inevitable consequence of this piece of evidence. <br />
<br />
Let us now assume a <b>Hypothesis B</b>, namely, that the IPCC models are able to predict future climate. As we already saw, the models that attribute the recent warming to the effect of greenhouse gases, in particular carbon dioxide, do not appropriately describe the properties of the real terrestrial climate system. Therefore, we can't expect any reasonable predictions from such models, and our <b>Hypothesis B </b>has to be rejected, for the same reason that we rejected <b>Hypothesis A</b>. This time, contradictory evidence is provided by the fact that the models don't even describe the currently existing climate, therefore, without a built-in understanding of how the climate works, the models can't be expected to predict how it will evolve in future.<br />
<br />
Our <b>Hypothesis C</b>, which we shall also test, is that IPCC during the 25 years of its existence has been doing something useful. The rejection of the above Hypotheses A and B demonstrates that <b>Hypothesis C</b> is wrong as well. Indeed, the IPCC Climate Predictions and Scenarios are based on their models, which are basically worthless. The <i><b>IPCC Reports</b></i>, at least in their part that describes future climate, should therefore be classified as <b><i>pseudoscience</i></b>, and expressly neglected in any serious discussion of future climate. <br />
<br />
q.e.d.<br />
<br />
As a side note, IPCC is obviously far too expensive for the scientific results it is producing, to say the very least.Igor Khmelinskiihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18352534067660168179noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4583140380583932549.post-28782217158938311262012-01-02T06:54:00.000-08:002012-05-14T05:21:00.812-07:00Vamos olhar a Islândia<div><br />
<br />
</div>A história da revolução em curso na Islândia, é um excelente exemplo de como alguns dos nossos meios de comunicação nos informam sobre o mundo. Em 2008, no início da crise financeira, a Islândia literalmente faliu. As razões foram mencionados apenas de passagem, e logo este pouco conhecido membro da União Europeia, como dizem, desapareceu do radar. Como um país Europeu após outro estão ameaçados de falência, o que ameaça a existência do euro, o que, na sua vez, terá múltiplas consequências para o mundo, a última coisa que as autoridades Europeus gostariam, é que a Islândia tornar-se-ia um exemplo para os outros.<br />
<br />
Ora em 2003, a dívida da Islândia igualou 200 por cento do seu PIB, e em 2007<br />
já foi de 900 por cento. A crise financeira global de 2008 foi um golpe fatal. Os três principais bancos da Islândia - Landbanki, Kapthing e Glitnir, flutuando de barriga para cima, foram nacionalizados e a coroa perdeu 85 por cento de seu valor contra o euro. No final do ano, a Islândia declarou a falência.<br />
<br />
Ao contrário do que seria de esperar, no processo de direito democrático, a crise levou a Islândia a restauração dos seus direitos soberanos, o que eventualmente levou a uma nova constituição. Protestos e demonstrações eventualmente forçaram a queda do governo. As eleições foram antecipadas para Abril de 2009, e veio ao poder um governo de esquerda, que renunciou o sistema económico neoliberal, mas logo se rendeu às exigências à Islândia para devolver um total de três bilhões e meio de euros. Isso obrigava a cada cidadão da Islândia pagar mensalmente 100 €, durante 15 anos para pagar dívidas, contraídas por pessoas físicas, em relação a outras pessoas físicas. Foi a gota da água que partiu as costas do camelo. <br />
<br />
O que aconteceu depois foi extraordinário. A opinião de que os cidadãos devem pagar pelos erros de um monopólio financeiro, e que a todo o país devem ser imposto um tributo para pagar as dívidas privadas, mudou as relações entre os cidadãos e as suas instituições políticas e, eventualmente, fez com que os líderes políticos da Islândia tomaram o lado de seus eleitores.<br />
<br />
Chefe de Estado Olafur Ragnar Grímsson se recusou a ratificar a lei, a qual tornaria os cidadãos da Islândia responsáveis pelas dívidas dos banqueiros Islandeses, e decidiu convocar um referendo. Claro, a comunidade internacional só aumentou a pressão sobre Islândia. Grã-Bretanha e os Países Baixos, ameaçaram aplicar duras medidas repressivas, que levariam ao isolamento do país. Quando os islandeses se reuniram para votar, o FMI ameaçou privar o país de qualquer assistência. O governo britânico ameaçou congelar a poupança e contas correntes dos islandeses. Disse o Grimmson: "Fomos informados de que, se não aceitaríamos as condições de comunidade internacional, tornaríamos numa a Cuba do norte. Mas, se tivéssemos concordado, transformaríamos no Haiti do norte.<br />
<br />
No referendo em Março de 2010, 93 por cento votaram contra o pagamento de dívidas. O FMI congelou os empréstimos imediatamente. Mas a revolução (a qual não foi mencionada pelos meios da comunicação social) não se intimidou. Os cidadãos irados apoiaram o governo na decisão de abrir processos civis e investigação criminal contra os responsáveis pela crise financeira. A Interpol emitiu um mandado de prisão internacional contra o Sigurdur Einarsson, ex-presidente do Kaupthing Bank, enquanto outros banqueiros, também envolvidos no escândalo, fugiram do país.<br />
<br />
Mas os islandeses não pararam por aí: eles decidiram adoptar uma nova Constituição, que iria libertar o país de autoridades internacionais financeiras e do dinheiro virtual. Para escrever uma nova constituição, o povo da Islândia elegeu 25 pessoas de entre de 522 adultos que não pertencem a nenhum partido político, recomendados cada um por pelo menos 30 pessoas. Este documento não foi o trabalho de um punhado de políticos, mas sim foi escrito na Internet. A assembleia constituinte realizou as suas reuniões online, e as pessoas podiam escrever seus comentários e fazer sugestões, com seus próprios olhos observando a sua constituição gradualmente a tomar forma. A Constituição, que em última instância nasceu desta participação popular, será apresentada ao Parlamento para aprovação após as próximas eleições.<br />
<br />
Hoje, as mesmas soluções estão oferecidas a outras nações. Dizem ao povo da Grécia que a privatização do sector público é a única solução. Sob a mesma ameaça estão os italianos, espanhóis e portugueses. Vamos dar uma olhada na Islândia. Na sua recusa em obedecer aos interesses estrangeiros, este país pequeno disse, em voz alta e claramente, que o seu povo é soberano. É por isso que a Islândia não está nas notícias.<br />
<br />
Tradução de Inglês, <a href="http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/3057-a-story-missing-from-our-media-icelands-on-going-revolution">deste artigo</a>.Igor Khmelinskiihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18352534067660168179noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4583140380583932549.post-29429243860198298052011-12-10T20:06:00.003-08:002012-09-11T14:13:19.779-07:00Os eco-fascistas da ONU em Durban: projecto do tratado climático<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br />
<br />
<br />
O site <a href="http://www.climatedepot.com/" target="_blank">Climate Depot</a> publicou uma notícia exclusiva que descreve o <a href="http://www.climatedepot.com/a/14072/Exclusive-UN-Climate-Draft-Text-Demands-New-International-Climate-Court-to-compel-reparations-for-climate-debt--Also-seeks-rights-of-Mother-Earth--2Cdeg-drop-in-global-temps" target="_blank">projecto do tratado climático preparado pela ONU para Durban</a>. O texto do documento original, de 138 páginas, <a href="http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/awglca14/eng/crp38.pdf" target="_blank">encontra-se no site da ONU</a>.<br />
<br />
Os pontos principais deste documento são:<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Um novo Tribunal climático internacional terá o poder de obrigar as nações ocidentais a pagar quantias cada vez maiores para países do terceiro mundo em nome de fazer reparação da alegada "dívida climática". O Tribunal não terá poderes sobre países do terceiro mundo. Aqui e em todo o projecto, o Ocidente é o único alvo. "O processo" está agora irremediavelmente anti-ocidental.</li>
<li>"Direitos da Mãe Terra": O projecto, que parece ter sido escrito por mentalmente atrasados activistas verdes e ambientalistas radicais, fala de "O reconhecimento e a defesa dos direitos da Mãe Terra para garantir a harmonia entre a humanidade ea natureza". Além disso, "não haverá mercantilização das funções da natureza, portanto, o mercado de carbono não será desenvolvido com essa finalidade".</li>
<li>"Direito de sobreviver": O projecto infantilmente afirma que "Os direitos de algumas partes para sobreviver estão ameaçadas pelos impactos adversos das alterações climáticas, incluindo aumento do nível do mar." Menos 2 centímetros por século, de acordo com dados de oito anos do satélite Envisat? O satélite Jason 2 mostra que o nível do mar tenha diminuído nos últimos três anos.</li>
<li>A guerra e a manutenção das forças de defesa terão de cessar - puro e simplesmente - porque eles contribuem para as alterações climáticas. Há outras razões pelas quais a guerra deve cessar, mas o projecto não os menciona.</li>
<li>Um novo valor-alvo da temperatura media: limitar o "aquecimento global" para tão pouco como 1 ° C acima dos níveis pré-industriais. Como a temperatura já está 3 º C acima dos níveis, o que está em vigor sendo proposto é uma redução da temperatura de 2 ° C. Isso levar-nos ia meio caminho de volta para a última Era Glacial, e iria matar centenas de milhões de pessoas. Frio é muito mais perigoso do que calor.</li>
<li>O novo alvo das emissões de CO2, apenas para os países ocidentais, será uma redução de até 50% as emissões ao longo dos próximos oito anos e de "mais de 100%" [essas palavras realmente aparecem no texto] até 2050. Portanto, não há automóveis, nenhuma estação de energia movida a carvão ou a gás, sem aviões, sem comboios. Volta à Idade da Pedra, mas, mesmo sem o direito de acender um fogo - emissor de carbono - na sua caverna. Moinhos de vento, painéis solares e outras "energias renováveis" são as únicas alternativas propostas no projecto. Não há menção da expansão rápida e imediata da energia nuclear a nível mundial para evitar a destruição quase total da economia.</li>
<li>A meta de nova concentração de CO2 tão baixa quanto 300 ppm equivalente de CO2 (ou seja, incluindo todos os outros gases-estufa, bem como CO2 propriamente dito). Que é um corte de quase metade em comparação com os 560 ppm equivalente de CO2 hoje. Implica apenas 210 ppm de CO2, com 90 ppm equivalente de CO2 de outros gases-estufa. Mas com 210 ppm de CO2, plantas e árvores começam a morrer. CO2 é o alimento das plantas. Eles precisam de muito mais do que 210 ppm de CO2.</li>
<li>O ano do pico de efeito de gases de estufa - apenas para o Ocidente - será este ano. Seremos obrigados a reduzir as nossas emissões a partir de agora, independentemente do efeito sobre as nossas economias (e da falta de efeito sobre o clima).</li>
<li>O Ocidente vai pagar por tudo, por causa de sua "responsabilidade histórica" em ter causado o "aquecimento global". Os países do terceiro mundo não serão obrigados a pagar nada. Mas é a ONU, e não os países do terceiro mundo, que irá receber o dinheiro do Ocidente, ficando com quase tudo para si, como de costume. Não há nenhuma disposição em qualquer lugar do projecto para a ONU a publicar as contas de como gastou os $ 100 bilhões por ano, que o projecto exige que o Ocidente deveria desembolsar, a partir de agora.</li>
</ul><div style="text-align: left;"><i>Traduzido de Inglês, parcialmente. </i>Autor do material: Christopher Monckton <br />
<br />
Deixamos ao leitor a tarefa de avaliar o estado de saúde mental de quem preparou o projecto do tratado climático da ONU.</div></div></div>Igor Khmelinskiihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18352534067660168179noreply@blogger.com0Durban, South Africa-29.857876 31.027581000000055-29.9263485 30.959947500000055 -29.789403500000002 31.095214500000054tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4583140380583932549.post-86521739537105226362011-10-04T04:51:00.000-07:002011-11-07T22:54:19.043-08:00Mentiras do Gore e assasínios em nome de créditos de carbono<div></div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">A TVI reciclou no Domingo dia 2 de Outubro o filme "Verdade Inconveniente" do Sr. Gore, esquecendo de o acompanhar de leitura de mais de 70 páginas de texto que explica as <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/US/TenWays/story?id=3719791&page=1">11 </a><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/US/TenWays/story?id=3719791&page=1">mentiras </a><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/US/TenWays/story?id=3719791&page=1">mais importantes </a> do mesmo filme, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thing.php">conforme foi decidido por um tribunal Britânico</a> ainda em Outubro de 2007. Mas a propaganda tem que continuar, para justificar o dinheiro gasto em moinhos de vento, e os milhões a morrer de fome em nome de combustíveis verdes ...<br />
<br />
Entretanto, as notícias de <a href="http://www.thegwpf.org/index.php?option=com_acymailing&ctrl=url&urlid=1591&mailid=382&subid=8360">assassínio de 23 agricultores em Honduras</a>, em disputa com os produtores de óleo de palmeira, usado na produção de combustíveis verdes, numa exploração acreditada pelas Nações Unidas, e as <a href="http://www.thegwpf.org/index.php?option=com_acymailing&ctrl=url&urlid=1592&mailid=382&subid=8360">crianças mortas pelas tropas em Uganda, depois das suas casas queimadas</a>, a mando da empresa Britânica New Forests Company, cujo negócio é a venda dos créditos de carbono, escapam completamente as média nacionais. Estes eventos trágicos são uma consequência directa das políticas ambientas criminosas da União Europeia.<br />
<br />
Será que estamos completamente loucos?</div>Igor Khmelinskiihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18352534067660168179noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4583140380583932549.post-50202958351826648682011-09-17T14:49:00.000-07:002011-10-04T05:01:57.743-07:00Thumbs up, Ivar Giaever; thumbs down, APS<div><br />
</div><blockquote>Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever <a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/214181/20110915/ivar-giaever-global-warming-climate-change-al-gore-ipcc-hoax-dissent-nobel-prize-winner-physicist-re.htm">Quits Physics Group over Stand on Global Warming</a>. </blockquote>Prof. Giaever has the civic courage and the honor to reject an association to an idea, which he believes is wrong, judging from the general principles - if other ideas can be questioned, why then the American Physical Society (APS) had declared the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) to be final and absolute truth, beyond any doubt and controversy?<br />
<br />
We know, however, that there are many more things wrong about AGW, apart from the general principles:<br />
<ul><li>any evidence for the AGW is strictly a product of climate models;</li>
<li>these climate models do not describe the properties of our climate system, and therefore can't be used for any predictions whatsoever;</li>
<li>climate data have been intentionally falsified; </li>
<li>policies based on the AGW hypothesis are destroying economies, </li>
<li>and causing Green Genocide in Africa;</li>
<li>we in fact need more Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere, and not less;</li>
<li>our climate will be cooling in the next 40 years, due to the new Grand Solar Minimum, </li>
<li>whereas the concentrations of greenhouse gases are largely irrelevant for climate. </li>
</ul>Read other articles on this blog to know more.Igor Khmelinskiihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18352534067660168179noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4583140380583932549.post-73997693414583312482011-08-12T11:20:00.000-07:002011-09-17T14:51:39.991-07:00A Crise da Dívida Soberana e os Preços de Energia<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Sendo os custos de energias renováveis a exceder em 300% os custos de energias convencionais, torna-se necessário inventar justificações plausíveis para este aumento de preços, a suportar pelo consumidor (foi exactamente este aumento proposto pelo governo Australiano no projecto da lei, chumbado pelo Parlamento). Ora a corrente crise da dívida soberana, por um lado, foi provocada pelas políticas das renováveis, financiadas pelo Governo nacional com recurso aos empréstimos bancários, e por outro lado, cria uma cortina de fumo que <a href="http://aeiou.visao.pt/faturas-medias-de-eletricidade-e-gas-natural-com-aumento-de-11-euros=f617444?amp=">permite aumentar os preços de todos os bens e serviços, aumentar os impostos, criar novos postos de trabalho para a classe política </a> ... É uma dádiva de Deus aos governos europeios.</div>
</div>
Igor Khmelinskiihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18352534067660168179noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4583140380583932549.post-58989942177495608562011-07-30T19:13:00.000-07:002011-07-31T06:35:07.329-07:00What is wrong with the "Skeptical Science" blog?<div><br />
</div><br />
The authors of the title blog, in <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-we-know-were-causing-global-warming-in-single-graphic.html">this post</a> and <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/">elsewhere</a>, want to make the reader believe that science works in the same way as the parliamentary democracy, namely, that:<br />
<ol><li>Personal opinions matter</li>
<li>Final truth is established by a vote, therefore the opinions getting more votes are more correct </li>
<li>Arguments matter, causing the decision-makers to change their opinions</li>
</ol>Thus, the authors follow the same paradigm of religious/political activism as the IPCC (the UN climate panel), working hard to overlook any reasons for the climate change other than the anthropogenic greenhouse gases, and therefore concluding that the greenhouse gases are the cause, and the humanity is to blame. Same as the IPCC, they dare call it "science" ...<br />
<br />
Therefore, their approach to "<i><b>proving</b></i>" the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis is to invent arguments that are allegedly invoked by their opponents to disprove it, then, by refuting these arguments, they allegedly reaffirm the AGW dogma. Needless to say, none of these arguments, whether correct or erroneous, bear any relevance to the subject discussed, once we use the scientific approach ...<br />
<br />
Now, science advances hypotheses, and tries to <i><b>disprove </b></i>them based on available experimental evidence, with a single piece of unexplained evidence sufficient to refute a hypothesis. Only those hypotheses that can survive experimental scrutiny make it to a theory. This approach is called <b>the scientific method</b>.<br />
<br />
However, the AGW hypothesis <a href="http://www.naun.org/journals/energyenvironment/19-660.pdf">has been refuted by experimental evidence</a>, once and again. Therefore, pretending that nothing has changed, and that the IPCC climate reports still represent the current state of climatology as <i><b>science, as opposed to religious/political activism</b></i>, can only be described as non-scientific.<br />
<br />
We therefore submit that "Sceptical Science" should be renamed "Dogmatic Faith". <br />
<br />
_Igor Khmelinskiihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18352534067660168179noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4583140380583932549.post-34433457623314582802011-07-20T02:49:00.000-07:002011-10-15T02:43:50.184-07:00NY Times finds truth abusive to its readers - and detrimental to its earnings<div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
Yesterday we commented<a href="http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/18/a-climate-hazard-medium-rare/#more-108159"> on this post</a> in the NY Times environmental blog. The post in question describes carbon emissions associated with different kinds of food.<br />
<br />
Our comment informed the readers that carbon (read "carbon dioxide") emissions are irrelevant for the environment and global warming / climate change, for the simple reason that the IPCC climate models are wrong - they have been refuted by the satellite measurements performed during the last 30 years. We also mentioned our scientific paper that has demonstrated all of the above, explaining that it fact our Earth is heading to a new Little Ice Age, caused by the upcoming Grand Solar Minimum, to be in full swing within 40 years.<br />
<br />
The comments on this blog are moderated, with the policy being that "generally, comments will be published if they are on the point and not abusive". We trust that our comment is on the very point of the issue discussed in the blog post, as in fact there is no need to get stressed about carbon emissions, at all. Therefore, it should have been rejected based on the "abusive" clause. However, the real reason is a conflict of interests, as NY Times is publicizing "carbon investments", "green energy" and such like on the same blog, therefore exposing the IPCC climate fraud may reduce the NY Times earnings. Crime pays. <br />
<br />
American Democracy, medium rare, please ...<br />
<br />
Follows the full text of our comment, submitted to the NY Times blog, for the benefit of the inquiring Reader.<br />
<hr /><b>Comment</b><br />
<br />
Please be aware that carbon emissions due to any type of human activity are completely irrelevant for climate and environment.<br />
<br />
Indeed, as we recently demonstrated in our paper "Climate Change Policies for the XXIst Century: Mechanisms, Predictions and Recommendations" (you can find the text if you Google for the entire title), nothing has ever been wrong with the climate, while the catastrophic predictions produced by the IPCC come from faulty climate models, time and again refuted by the results of satellite measurements made during the last 30 years.<br />
<br />
In reality we are all going towards a new Little Ice Age, coming in full force within the next 40 years, and caused by the approaching Grand Solar Minimum, similar to the Maunder Minimum. Moreover, any and all climate change observed during the last 150 years has been caused by factors external to the climate system, such as changes in solar activity, and not by microscopic changes in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide or any other human-dependent effect. <br />
<br />
We therefore vehemently object to the usage of the word "science" with respect to the IPCC activities, which should be characterized as either political or religious activism, and should not be financed by the taxpayer money any longer.<br />
<br />
_Igor Khmelinskiihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18352534067660168179noreply@blogger.com0Faro District, Portugal37.0153597 -7.935113000000001236.9239982 -8.034479000000001 37.106721199999996 -7.8357470000000013tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4583140380583932549.post-86800619527104062062011-07-18T08:54:00.000-07:002011-07-18T08:56:55.220-07:00O Princípio de Peter<div><br />
<br />
</div>Diz o <a href="http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princ%C3%ADpio_de_Peter">Princípio de Peter</a> que todos os níveis numa organização hierárquica tendem ser ocupados pelas pessoas incompetentes. Uma recente intervenção da <a href="http://aeiou.expresso.pt/gravatas-fora-do-ministerio-da-agricultura=f662026">Sra Ministra de Agricultura</a> deu-nos mais uma prova do mesmo ...<br />
<br />
Não temos a mínima dúvida que desligar o ar condicionado fica mais barato que o manter ligado. Quanto a "<a href="http://aeiou.expresso.pt/gravatas-fora-do-ministerio-da-agricultura=f662026">aposta na economia de baixo carbono</a>", esta última:<br />
<ol><li>É economicamente insustentável, pois implica <a href="http://clima-virtual-vs-real.blogspot.com/2010/10/as-consequencias-economicas-de-energias.html">custos de energia, no mínimo, 3 vezes mais elevados</a>;</li>
<li>Não faz qualquer sentido do ponto de vista ambiental, <a href="http://clima-virtual-vs-real.blogspot.com/2010/11/climate-change-in-xxist-century.html">pois os efeitos negativos do dióxido de carbono</a> atmosférico (o "carbono" na linguagem da Sra Ministra) são inexistentes;</li>
<li>É prejudicial à agricultura, pelo benefício da qual a Sra Ministra tem o dever de zelar, <a href="http://clima-virtual-vs-real.blogspot.com/2010/11/climate-change-in-xxist-century.html">pois reduz a produtividade agrícola</a>;</li>
<li>E é moralmente injustificável, <a href="http://clima-virtual-vs-real.blogspot.com/2011/02/verde-morte-green-death.html">provocando genocídio por fome</a>, numa escala sem precedentes. </li>
</ol>A autodidáctica faz maravilhas, Sra Ministra ...<br />
<br />
_Igor Khmelinskiihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18352534067660168179noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4583140380583932549.post-11932681797843664262011-07-12T15:37:00.000-07:002011-11-26T09:30:56.037-08:00Incompetência ou Premeditação?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div></div><br />
<br />
Construímos o gráfico seguinte utilizando os dados do <a href="http://www.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=INE&xpgid=ine_contas_nacionais&perfil=104012217&INST=116633478&contexto=am">Instituto Nacional de Estatística</a> (Tabela A.2, <a class="indicador_det_big" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=4583140380583932549&postID=1193268179784366426&from=pencil" title="A.2 Income, Saving and Net Lending/Borrowing (It opens a new window)">"Income, Saving and Net Lending/Borrowing"</a>, "current prices, annual").<br />
Como podemos ver, foi o governo do Guterres quem iniciou o ciclo viciado de pedir cada vez mais empréstimos, para financiar as parcerias público-privadas e outras medidas destinadas exclusivamente à apropriação dos bens públicos pela classe política nacional. Deste modo, devem ser responsabilizados, pela Crise da Dívida Soberana, em primeiro lugar, os governos do PS dos últimos 15 anos.<br />
Podemos constatar ainda que a crise económica internacional nada tem a ver, nem alguma vez tinha, com as dificuldades da nossa economia. Nomeadamente, os empréstimos contraídos no ano de 2001 não foram superiores aos contraídos no ano de 2000, apesar das afirmações, feitas na altura pelos governantes, de como a economia nacional está a ser prejudicada pela crise económica mundial, provocada pelos acontecimentos de 11 de Setembro de 2001.<br />
<br />
<b>NB</b>: Julgando pela forma exponencial da curva, aproximadamente desde o início da governação do Sócrates, todos os anos foi necessário pedir cada vez mais empréstimos, para pagar os juros dos empréstimos já existentes. Assim, temos grandes dúvidas quanto a competência e a seriedade tanto do próprio Sr ex Primeiro-Ministro como dos seus ministros, os quais não sabiam fazer as conclusões correctas, no início dos seus mandatos. [2011-11-26]<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIjavQh5vf20z9QoBc-y-otZmRq9MUldP2ylOdFn-zLLFiXtiNHTc2cLC9Tbl7kNBLvIY8lVFWOqLHHGBpdL-zzjbVEBQYDYRvz-8nmxCu4sQV8SMvqU3ZRLYTA9WfMpUxYJfy5DAZP9L3/s1600/TABLE+A.2.1+1995-2010.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="282" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIjavQh5vf20z9QoBc-y-otZmRq9MUldP2ylOdFn-zLLFiXtiNHTc2cLC9Tbl7kNBLvIY8lVFWOqLHHGBpdL-zzjbVEBQYDYRvz-8nmxCu4sQV8SMvqU3ZRLYTA9WfMpUxYJfy5DAZP9L3/s400/TABLE+A.2.1+1995-2010.png" width="400" /></a></div><br />
<br />
_</div>Igor Khmelinskiihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18352534067660168179noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4583140380583932549.post-77595438313052903292011-06-28T09:43:00.000-07:002011-06-29T03:39:24.975-07:00Bolos para IPCC/ONU, Morte para Africanos<div><pre>
</pre></div><blockquote>Reacção ao artigo "Comida para todos" do <a href="http://www.srfood.org/">Olivier de Schutter</a>, <i>Relator Especial na ONU para o direito à alimentação</i>, publicado no Jornal de Negócios no dia 11 de Abril de 2011.</blockquote><br />
O autor dedica a maior parte do artigo à apresentação das medidas, que embora fazem todo o sentido, dificilmente seriam implementados pelos países da G20, em benefício das nações pobres, pois as próprias G20 sofrem as consequências da crise financeira e das políticas desastrosas ambientais e energéticas que estão a implementar, não dispondo por isso de possibilidade de ajudar às nações pobres.<br />
<br />
Por outro lado, o autor mostra uma incompetência profissional surpreendente para quem é supostamente um perito na matéria, passo a citar:<br />
<blockquote>"... No futuro, espera-se que as alterações climáticas conduzam a mais choques na oferta ..." </blockquote><ul><li>Falso. As mudanças climáticas são periódicas, razão pela qual o clima do futuro não será diferente do clima de um passado, e não tão longínquo como isso.</li>
</ul><blockquote>" ... Mas a agricultura também é uma grande culpada pelas mudanças climáticas, responsável por 33% de todas as emissões de gás com efeito de estufa ..."</blockquote><ul><li>Falso. Não são os gases com efeito de estufa que provocam as mudanças climáticas, mas sim as alterações de actividade solar, sendo estas também periódicas.</li>
</ul>Entretanto, em nada nos surpreende a publicação deste artigo no JN, bem conhecido pela propaganda desenfreada de ideologia misantrópica de eco-terrorismo, dirigido tanto contra as nações pobres, como contra as nações desenvolvidas e ricas.<br />
<br />
Ora o autor não consegue perceber que o dióxido de carbono atmosférico beneficia a agricultura, aumentando os rendimentos sem quaisquer gastos adicionais, razão pela qual precisamos de mas CO<sub>2</sub> na atmosfera. Por outro lado, não precisamos de reduzir as emissões de CO<sub>2 </sub>nem de qualquer outro gás com efeito de estufa, pois as suas consequências climáticas negativas existem apenas nas mentes delirantes dos peritos climáticos do IPCC/ONU e nos seus modelos de um sistema climático virtual, inteiramente ilusórios e enganadores, que nada têm a ver com a nossa realidade. <br />
<br />
_Igor Khmelinskiihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18352534067660168179noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4583140380583932549.post-77202391108545948772011-06-25T04:20:00.000-07:002011-06-25T04:30:53.433-07:00Mensagem de 1 de Dezembro de D. Duarte de Bragança<div><pre wrap=""> </pre></div><blockquote>Recebido via email</blockquote><br />
Na perspectiva histórica de um País com perto de 900 anos, o penoso caminhar numa crise comparável à vivida nos tempos da I República cujo centenário este ano faustosamente se comemorou, permite-nos retirar diversas conclusões.<br />
<br />
Comecemos pela circunstância de a República, fundada pela força que derrubou um Regime Democrático, nunca, até aos nossos dias, haver sido legitimada pelo voto popular.<br />
<br />
Significativo é, também, o facto de o regime republicano, nas suas várias expressões, não ter tido capacidade para resolver nenhum dos problemas de que acusava a Monarquia e o facto de que as Democracias mais desenvolvidas e estáveis da Europa serem Monarquias.<br />
<br />
As nossas três Repúblicas do séc. XX nasceram de três golpes militares após os quais os governantes se lançaram a reorganizar a sociedade, com os resultados que agora estão à vista.<br />
<br />
Como herdeiro dos Reis de Portugal, eu represento um outro princípio, o princípio da liberdade e não o da coerção. Chegou a hora de a sociedade livremente dizer que Estado quer. Em vários reinos do Norte da Europa ouvi destacados políticos afirmarem que "vivemos em República, mas o nosso Rei é o melhor defensor da nossa República".<br />
<br />
Deixo aqui uma mensagem aos monárquicos, aos convictos que, hoje, são a minoria mas, segundo as sondagens, serão a maioria no futuro que se aproxima.<br />
<br />
Quero lembrar que essas sondagens chegam a referir 20%, 30% ou 40% de monárquicos, conforme as perguntas são feitas, percentagens tanto mais valiosas quanto resultam da escolha de pessoas livres e não de propagandas de partidos ou de movimentos sem transparência.<br />
<br />
Quero agradecer-vos a generosidade, o entusiasmo, e a dedicação quando içam nas ruas a bandeira das Quinas com a Coroa e quero dizer-vos que continuarei a acompanhá-los, como sucedeu no 5 de Outubro em Guimarães, o dia da independência nacional.<br />
<br />
A situação humilhante em que a Nação se encontra perante nós próprios e a comunidade internacional obriga-nos a reflectir sobre novos modelos de desenvolvimento económico e de vida em sociedade, inspirados no bem comum.<br />
<br />
Com efeito, a expectativa inicial do projecto europeu que a generalidade dos membros abraçou e que se assumiu, na sua origem, como um projecto de cooperação entre Estados - com os mais ricos a ajudarem os mais pobres - corre o risco de passar, rapidamente, de miragem a tragédia, com os mais fortes a ditarem regras e a impor sanções aos mais vulneráveis.<br />
<br />
Neste contexto de incerteza e preocupação, são, por isso, cada vez mais as vozes autorizadas que preconizam a necessidade da reforma do modelo de desenvolvimento económico global. A reactivação estratégica de uma agricultura sustentável e ecologicamente equilibrada é fundamental para enfrentarmos com segurança os desafios actuais, como há pouco tempo lembrou o Papa Bento XVI .<br />
<br />
Precisamos de um novo modelo para conseguir maior felicidade e bem-estar com menor desperdício de recursos, que deverão ser melhor e mais justamente partilhados, para que a ninguém falte o essencial.<br />
<br />
Havendo tantas necessidades de apoio às populações seria desejável dinamizar as antigas tradições de voluntariado, recorrendo também aos serviços dos beneficiários de subsídios do Estado, como condição para receberem esses subsídios. Receber subsídios sem dar a sua contribuição para a sociedade equivale a receber esmolas, o que não é bom.<br />
<br />
Portugal não pode cair no desânimo a que nos conduzem os constantes e confusos acontecimentos políticos nacionais amplamente noticiados.<br />
<br />
É fundamental acreditar no Futuro e partilhar Esperança, nunca nos esquecendo de onde viemos e para onde queremos ir.<br />
<br />
Para isso há que cultivar os exemplos de competência, seriedade e coragem na defesa de ideais, combatendo a falta de autenticidade que, infelizmente, constitui uma das mais comuns e perversas características do nosso tempo.<br />
<br />
Quem está na Política deve ter como primeiro e último objectivo SERVIR a Pátria e, em particular, permitir a valorização dos mais desfavorecidos.<br />
<br />
E para esta valorização ser possível, teremos de repensar todo o nosso sistema educativo, do pré-primário ao superior, adaptando os cursos às necessidades profissionais actuais e futuras e criando - com suporte da rede de ensino privado e cooperativo - condições às famílias com menos recursos para poderem escolher os estabelecimentos que gostariam que os seus filhos frequentassem, sem que tal venha a implicar aumento de encargos para o Estado.<br />
<br />
Tenho visitado muitas escolas onde me explicam que os programas são desajustados às realidades actuais e às saídas profissionais, e particularmente aos jovens com problemas de adaptação. O "Cheque Ensino" seria uma solução para estes problemas, permitindo às famílias escolher a oferta escolar mais adaptada às necessidades dos seus filhos, evitando a discriminação económica actual e promovendo a qualidade do ensino através de uma saudável concorrência.<br />
<br />
Só desta forma conseguiremos melhorar efectivamente o nível médio cultural, académico e profissional da população com vista ao progressivo desenvolvimento e engrandecimento do País e não com fim exclusivamente estatístico.<br />
<br />
Na sua longa História, Portugal foi grande quando se lhe depararam desafios que envolveram projectos galvanizadores de verdadeira dimensão nacional. Nessas alturas, os portugueses sempre souberam responder com criatividade, entusiasmo e coragem.<br />
<br />
Hoje, é no Mar e na Lusofonia que a nossa atenção deve ser focada como áreas de eleição para realizar um projecto de futuro para o País e para a Comunidade dos Países de Língua Oficial Portuguesa. Afinal, são estas duas vertentes que, desde o início da Expansão Marítima Portuguesa, com períodos de maior ou menor brilho, maior ou menor envolvimento, têm vindo a constituir o nosso Desígnio.<br />
<br />
O prestigiado Jean Ziegler, meu professor em Genebra, ensinava que existem dois caminhos para desenvolver os povos. O primeiro começava pela educação profissional, académica e ética da população , que iria desenvolver o país e conduzi-lo ao enriquecimento. O segundo caminho consistia em injectar dinheiro estrangeiro na economia. Os governantes criariam grandes infra-estruturas, enriquecendo-se alguns deles no processo, e a população compraria bens de consumo importados, enriquecendo o comércio. Mas no fim, essa nação estaria endividada e a classe média empobrecida porque as capacidades de produção teriam diminuído.<br />
<br />
Infelizmente é esta a nossa realidade recente.<br />
<br />
Deixo para os especialistas apontarem os factores da crise que nos fustiga, fazerem os diagnósticos acertados, apontarem as vias de solução. Mas não posso deixar de dizer que é urgente arrepiarmos o caminho que nos trouxe à gravíssima crise económica e financeira que atravessamos, como venho denunciando desde há anos.<br />
<br />
Foi justamente neste sentido que, este ano, pela segunda vez, promovi, no âmbito da Comissão D. Carlos 100 Anos, a organização do Congresso "Mares da Lusofonia" que permitiu uma participada reflexão, com representantes de todos os Países da CPLP presentes, acerca da valia dos mares e das Plataformas Continentais dos países lusófonos nas vertentes estratégica, de segurança, jurídica, ambiental, científica, tecnológica e económica.<br />
<br />
A intensificação do intercâmbio de conhecimentos da sociedade civil e o fortalecimento das relações afectivas entre os nossos países contribuirá decisivamente para a supressão das barreiras que ainda existem.<br />
<br />
Recentemente visitei o Brasil, pátria de minha Mãe, onde, em Brasília, tive a feliz oportunidade de contactar alguns membros do seu Governo.<br />
<br />
Transmiti os meus sinceros votos de sucesso à recém-eleita Presidente Dilma Russef.<br />
<br />
Percebi que lá existe uma grande abertura à ideia de uma futura Confederação de Estados Lusófonos, que muito beneficiaria todos os seus membros e cuja adesão não comprometeria as alianças regionais existentes. O facto do Reino Unido pertencer à Commonwealth não prejudica a sua participação na União Europeia mas valoriza-a.<br />
<br />
Ainda sobre a importância da afectividade que naturalmente se cultiva na Comunidade Lusófona, virá a propósito salientar a decisão do Governo de Timor, país a que me ligam relações de profunda amizade, quando, à semanas, declarou o seu auxílio a Portugal na compra de parte da nossa dívida pública, num gesto de fraternal amizade. Do mesmo modo, tenho indicações de que muito nos beneficiaria negociar com o Brasil um empréstimo para resolver a crise da dívida pública soberana em melhores condições do que com o FMI ou a Europa.<br />
<br />
Para concluir, gostaria de transmitir a todos os portugueses uma mensagem de ânimo:<br />
<br />
Não vos deixeis abater pela situação de dificuldade económica e crise moral que actualmente nos invade.<br />
<br />
Lembrai-vos que tivemos momentos bem mais graves na nossa História em que a perenidade da Instituição Real foi suporte decisivo para a recuperação conseguida.<br />
<br />
A dinastia, baseada na família, oferece o referencial de continuidade de que Portugal está carente há cem anos.<br />
<br />
Viva Portugal!Igor Khmelinskiihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18352534067660168179noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4583140380583932549.post-43582490974987700902011-06-20T06:13:00.000-07:002011-06-20T06:23:51.136-07:00O Sétimo Selo do Quarto Cavaleiro de Apocálipse<div></div><br />
<blockquote>Este post é uma reacção à publicação pela editora Gradiva do livro do jornalista José Rodrigues dos Santos "O Sétimo Selo".</blockquote>Na nossa lista mereceram um grande destaque, pela negativa, tanto o autor do livro, que se juntou ao coro dos apologistas de ideologia misantrópica que junta a aceitação da fraude climática da IPCC/ONU à propaganda de energias verdes e combustíveis verdes, que estão a provocar um genocídio sem precedentes, por fome, nas nações pobres, como a editora, a qual tinha uma reputação de estar a promover causas nobres. Ora a fraude, as mentiras e os homicídios nobres nunca serão.<br />
<br />
Além da ausência completa da integridade moral, a qual se espera de um jornalista e escritor, o autor revelou uma ignorância ímpar para quem alegadamente estudou os fundamentos científicos dos problemas que o mesmo escolheu abordar no seu romance.<br />
<br />
Para começar, o hidrogénio citado pelo autor como uma solução dos problemas energéticos da humanidade não os consegue resolver, pois não existe nesta Terra qualquer jazida deste gás, e para produzir o mesmo, precisamos de gastar energia, a qual supostamente está em falta. Conclusão: mentira e fraude. O papel que aguenta.<br />
<br />
Quanto ao petróleo, se este estiver a faltar, então apenas e só pelos motivos políticos - há quem aposta em combustíveis verdes, promovendo o genocídio por fome; comerciais, pois com a subida dos preços ganham mais os revendedores; e orçamentais - pois os governos, inclusivamente o Governo de Portugal, cobram cada vez mais impostos sobre um bem supostamente deficitário. Entretanto, e <a href="http://clima-virtual-vs-real.blogspot.com/2010/10/fossil-fuels-are-dwindling-you-got-to.html">como mostramos recentemente</a>, haverá combustíveis fósseis mais que suficientes para serem queimados sem limitações durante os próximos 1000 anos. <br />
<br />
Quanto a integridade moral e competência científica dos seus consultores, estes também são, no mínimo, duvidosas, pois a própria IPCC/ONU foi apanhada repetidamente em flagrantes delitos, a mentir descaradamente tanto nos seus relatórios, muitos dos cujos autores são pessoas com agenda política verde mas sem qualquer preparação científica, como por ter usado métodos demagógicos, dogmáticos e propagandistas, que nada têm a ver com a ciência. Com efeito, as principais conclusões dos mencionados relatórios são falsas: o dióxido de carbono não está a poluir a atmosfera; o dióxido de carbono não está a provocar o aquecimento global; não se vislumbra a hipótese de qualquer catástrofe climática iminente, quer que seja antropogénica ou não. <a href="http://clima-virtual-vs-real.blogspot.com/2010/12/nosso-artigo-publicado.html">Os pormenores estão no nosso artigo</a>. <br />
<br />
De facto, todas as políticas oficiais correntes estão completamente opostas às necessidades: precisamos de mais dióxido de carbono na atmosfera, para aumentar a produtividade agrícola; precisamos de mais dióxido de carbono na atmosfera, para reduzir os efeitos da uma nova Pequena Idade de Gelo, real, e não virtual como o aquecimento global antropogénico; precisamos de fornecer energia barata a toda a humanidade, incluindo a energia dos combustíveis fósseis, para melhorar o seu bem-estar e então reduzir as taxas de natalidade; e, finalmente, precisamos de nos preparar para a redução da temperatura global nos próximos 30 anos, acompanhada pela redução da produtividade agrícola, com todas as consequências negativas que isso trará. <br />
<br />
O autor pode ser entretanto congratulado por entrar numa boa companhia: o Adolf Hitler o o seu IIIº Reich também eram muito verdes e ecológicos.<br />
<br />
_Igor Khmelinskiihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18352534067660168179noreply@blogger.com0