Dagelijkse archieven: 14 mei 2017


Prikbord nr. 624 door Columnist Leo J.J. Dorrestijn

Prikbord nr 624

 

Gered

En weer zijn er duizenden gelukszoekers ‘gered’ op de Middellandse Zee. De Italiaanse justitie weet inmiddels – al dan niet via Frontex – precies hoe de mensensmokkelaars en hulporganisaties te werk gaan. Doch het aanmoedigen van gelukszoekers is kennelijk beleid geworden in Brussel.  Daarbij zijn onze zeegrenzen zo lek dat bepaalde schepen zich uren lang, soms dagen, ‘onzichtbaar’ kunnen houden voor de autoriteiten of zelfs een andere identiteit aannemen. Dit komt niet alleen de mensensmokkel, maar ook de drugs- en wapenhandel ten goede. Intussen worden in Duitsland wel duizenden manuren en zes(!) zittingsdagen van de rechtbank besteed aan één enkele minderjarige die vermoedelijk een ‘aanslag’ wilde plegen met 2 zgn. molotovcocktails (brandflessen). Terwijl inmiddels honderden criminelen en voormalige IS-strijders Europa binnenstromen.

 

Schulz-effect

Bij de verkiezingen in de Duitse deelstaat NRW blijkt het Schulz-effect  uitgewerkt voor de SPD. De demagoog uit Brussel heeft wederom onvoldoende indruk gemaakt op de kiezer die steeds wantrouwiger wordt over politieke idealen die alleen maar geld kosten. En wie ronkende volzinnen wil horen, kan beter op zondagmorgen de Amerikaanse ‘dominees’ beluisteren tijdens hun tv-show. Of de SPD ook bij de bondsdagverkiezingen terrein verliest, zal nog moeten blijken. Want ook voor Merkel geldt: hoe hoger de verwachtingen waren, hoe groter de teleurstelling straks. Haar regering kampt met vele problemen in nagenoeg alle ministeries, die alleen opgelost kunnen worden als eerst de feiten aan het licht komen. Een uiterst pijnlijk proces dat de integriteit van politici – ook binnen de CDU – ter discussie zal stellen.

 

Windmolens

Het gegoochel met cijfers bij de windmolenprojecten begint absurde vormen aan te nemen. Zo wordt beweerd dat met een investering van bijna 3 miljard ca. 800.000 (?) huishoudens van stroom kunnen worden voorzien. Dit zou betekenen dat tegen jaarlijkse stroomkosten van € 1.000,- per huishouden, de investering in 4 jaar is terugverdiend, tenzij de onderhoudskosten (op zee) gigantisch zijn. Waarom de kosten voor de overheid € 4,5 miljard in 15 jaar moeten bedragen is derhalve een raadsel. Ook de CO2-winst is een raadsel, met name in vergelijking met kerncentrales.

 

 

Niet geschikt voor websites

 

Global Quackery: Earth Has Not Warmed For Past 19 Years, New Study Finds

By:

Joseph Curl

May 8, 2017

64237 1584 143123

We are bombarded with “facts” every day: This is the “hottest [pick a season] ever”; the ice caps are at a record low; we’ll all be dead in 10 years.

For former president Barack Obama, the ever-changing and often contradictory “facts” about global warming (which liberals now call climate change because the globe stopped warming) was simply “settled science.”

But now it turns out the Arctic sea ice is thicker than ever and, oh yeah, the global temperature trend has not warmed for 19 years. That’s right — 19 years!

The Telegraph newspaper in the UK has published a fascinating article detailing data from the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI).

Ever since December temperatures in the Arctic have consistently been lower than minus 20 CIn April the extent of Arctic sea ice was back to where it was in April 13 years ago. Furthermore, whereas in 2008 most of the ice was extremely thin, this year most has been at least two metres thick. The Greenland ice cap last winter increased in volume faster than at any time for years.

As for those record temperatures brought in 2016 by an exceptionally strong El Niño, the satellites now show that in recent months global temperatures have plummeted by more that 0.6 degrees: just as happened 17 years ago after a similarly strong El Niño had also made 1998 the “hottest year on record”.

This means the global temperature trend has now shown no further warming for 19 yearsBut the BBC won’t be telling us any of thisAnd we are still stuck with that insanely damaging Climate Change Act, which in this election will scarcely get a mention.

​The author then goes on to decry the very real consequences to businesses and citizens from governments continuing to enact ever more stringent regulation to offset this global “warming.” But the real findings of the DMI are significant. The liberal media might take issue with a U.S. think tank funding a study that says global warming doesn’t exist — or at least hasn’t for 19 years — but they’ll accept the findings from little ol’ Denmark, won’t they?

But wait, there’s more — much more.

“Experts told Daily Star Online planet Earth is on course for a “Little Age Ice” within the next three years thanks to a cocktail of climate change and low solar activity,” the Brit paper writes on Monday.  Zoiets herinner ik me nog uit begin van de jaren 90 toen ook werd aangekondigd dat e  wellicht een Kleine IJstijd op komst was: “Low Solar Activity (wat dit ook moge betekenen?). Maar doordat vele geleerden al tijden roepen dat ons klimaat op aarde veel meer onder invloed van de zon dan wat ook staat, begrijp ik dat we vooral goed op de zon moeten letten om iets over ontwikkelingen in ons klimaat te kunnen voorspellen. Dus niet CO2 uitstoot, maar zonne-activiteit kan de sleutel zijn. 

Research shows a natural cooling cycle that occurs every 230 years began in 2014 and will send temperatures plummeting even further by 2019.

Scientists are also expecting a “huge reduction” in solar activity for 33 years between 2020 and 2053 that will cause thermometers to crash.

Both cycles suggest Earth is entering a global cooling cycle that could have devastating consequences for global economy, human life and society as we know it.

If predictions of the world-wide big freeze come true, the plot to 2004 film The Day After Tomorrow would not be far from reality during winter. …

David Dilley, CEO of Global Weather Oscillations, told Daily Star Online global warming and cooling cycles are determined by the gravitational forces of the Earth, moon and sun.

Each cycle lasts around 120,000 years, with sub-cycles of around 230 years.

He said: “We have had five warming cycles since about 900AD, each followed by a dramatic cooling cycle.

“The last global warming cycle ended in 1790 and the year 2020 is 230 following this – thus I have been talking about rapid cooling beginning in 2019.”

He said the oncoming cooling will send temperatures plummeting to lows last seen in the 1940s – when the mercury bottomed out at -21C during winter in the UK.

He said: “Cooling from 2019 into about 2020 to 2021 will bring world temperatures back to where they were in the 1940s through the 1960s.

By the way, the headline of the Telegraph article was perfect: “Another Arctic ice panic over as world temperatures plummet.” Exactly. Watch the MSM networks and websites for these latest reports — and then ponder why they never ran them ….

Geen nood!  

Wat geen nood?

Nou dat er geen warming maar cooling lijkt aan te komen.

Let op! Zodra deze mening momentum krijgt zal de hele Global Warming fanclub beginnen met te verklaren dat deze cooling een logisch gevolg is van de door hen aangekondigde warming. Zoals nu elke regendag, elke warme dag, wordt gekwalificeerd door alle lokale ‘Pelleboers’ als de natste, warmste, koudste dag uit mijn hele leven! enz. enz. En waarom hebben we een warme, koude, natte dag? Duidelijk gevolg van………  ja hoor! Alsof klimaat hetzelfde is als temperatuur.

Matt Ridley -de UK geleerde die ik vaker in jullie aandacht aanbeveel – doet ook zijn duitje in het Climate Change zakje.

Nuchter als altijd beperkt hij zich tot feiten en geeft zich niet over aan kretologie.

Het levert 161 commentaren op in The Times. Maar op den duur raakten een hele zwik professoren en medici verbaal met elkaar slaags over de vraag of we nu beter af zijn met ziektebestrijding dan bijv. in 1945…. Interessant natuurlijk maar n.m.m. een beetje verwijderd van Climate Change…..

Ikzelf denk ook dat er heel veel zinnigs zit in het waarschuwen voor de explosieve bevolkingsgroei in bijv. Afrika, Gaza, India enz.

Ik zie ook geen enkele Economie in staat om werk te verschaffen voor zoveel honderden miljoenen extra. En wat gaan al die toekomstige werklozen zonder poen dan doen? Nou bijv. wat ISIS voorstaat: het halen of vernielen daar waar ze het beter hebben!

May 8 2017, 12:01am, The Times

Trump is right to be sceptical of climate deal

Matt Ridley

If the US pulls out of the 2015 Paris agreement it will be because the plan is as weak and futile as the green camp feared

President Trump will decide shortly whether to pull the US out of the Paris agreement on climate change. By all accounts, his instincts and his campaign promises encourage him to do so while his daughter Ivanka and his secretary of state Rex Tillerson want him not to. He has already started rolling back the “clean power plan”, which was Barack Obama’s way of meeting America’s commitment under the Paris agreement.

If he does pull out, or send the agreement to the Senate for ratification on the grounds that it is a “treaty” — something Obama took great pains to try to deny so that he would not have to send it to the Senate — there will be a fresh paroxysm of rage among his critics. Climate scepticism is high among reasons that the left hates Trump. By contrast, it is one of the few things on which I half agree with him.

I am not quite sure why his critics mind so much. Indeed, if I were one of those who thought climate change the biggest threat to humankind bar none, then I would be far more critical of the Paris agreement than I actually am. I would rail against the fact that it is a futile gestureneither legally binding enough to be enforceable, nor of sufficient scale to make a difference to climate change. It’s those people who most worry about global warming who should be most critical of Paris.

To understand why, wind the clock back eight years to the Copenhagen climate conference in 2009, where world leaders were humiliated by their inability to reach agreement on a replacement for the Kyoto treaty of 1997Kyoto’s fundamental flaw was beyond remedyit put a heavy burden on the developed worldwhile rapidly growing countries, such as China, were unaffected. After Copenhagen the whole Kyoto process unwound. The US failed to ratify, Japan said it would never commit to a similar treaty in the future, Russia rejected the second round of commitments and Canada pulled out completely.  Nooit eerder de globale opstelling  in het Climate Change debat zo bondig zien samenvatten. Terwijl de pro Climate Change club om het hardst roept dat de “discussie voorbij is” (er zouden immers maar een paar halve zolen zijn, die er nog steeds niet in willen geloven) blijkt de realiteit een geheel andere! Grote delen van de wereld weigeren zich te committeren aan de theorie. En degenen die zich er meteen aan overgaven trekken – hoe meer feiten bekend worden – hun handen ervan af.

Determined not to repeat the Copenhagen fiasco, the climatocracy dominated by the United Nations, the European Union and the green NGOs set about building a new approach. In 2011, at Durban, they got world leaders to agree an EU plan to put in place by 2015 a legally binding treaty that would apply to the whole world and come into force by 2020. Connie Hedegaard, European commissioner for climate action, boasted that “the EU has achieved its key goal for the Durban climate conference” of agreeing to a “roadmap towards a new legal framework by 2015”.

But others were worried. Greenpeace observed that “the Durban Platform still includes wording that could be exploited by the US and its allies to push a voluntary rather than binding approach, and risks locking in the current inadequate level of carbon cuts for a decade”.

So it was clear that the 2015 Paris treaty was to be legally binding, not voluntary, and extreme, not modest, or it would be a failure. In November of that year, as Paris approached, this was reiterated repeatedly. “The Paris agreement must be an international legally binding agreement,” said the EU’s spokesman. The French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, even rebuked John Kerry, the US secretary of state, for casting doubt on whether a legally binding treaty was possibleMr Kerry was “confused”, he said. Let op! Het gaat hier over de Obama’s persoonlijke boodschappenjongen. Die er nauwelijks eigen ideeën op leek na te houden!  

However, Mr Kerry was right, and during the Paris meeting it became clear that no such agreement was possible. Instead of admitting another failure, the envirocrats decided to change tack: they abandoned any pretence of a legally binding agreement, called for voluntary offers of emission reduction, but covered this all up with a full-volume declaration of victory. When I pointed out the volte-face in a speech in the House of Lords, I was told by my own front bench that only North Korea agreed with me. Said the minister: “If it really was, as he perhaps implies, just a piece of paper and not worth the paper it is written on, why was it so hard an agreement to reach?” I do not follow this logic.

Yet not only was the Paris agreement not legally binding, it was also deeply impractical. The intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs) that each country offered turned out to be feeble. In a peer-reviewed paper, the economist Bjorn Lomborg calculated how much the pledges would reduce warming, using standard models and generous assumptions about how quickly the reductions would be achieved and how long they would be sustained. Lomborg (DK) is één van de beroemdste sceptics! 

He found that all the promises made by the US, China, the EU and the rest of the world, if implemented from the early 2000s to 2030, and then sustained through the rest of the century, would reduce the expected rise in global temperature by only 0.17°C in the year 2100. That is to say, instead of rising by 2, 3 or 4 degrees or so by the time our great grandchildren are adults, world average temperature would rise by 1.83, 2.83 or 3.83 degrees. Lomborg put it this way: “Current climate policy promises will do little to stabilise the climate and their impact will be undetectable for many decades”. A different study by scientists at MIT came to similar conclusions. The INDCs add up to the square root of zilch. “zilch” = 0! 

However, and this is the crucial point, Lomborg also points out this invisible achievement would come at a staggering cost, somewhere between $1 trillion and $2 trillion a year: “Paying $100 trillion for no good is not a good deal”. Who could disagree? Lomborg wants Trump to can the Paris agreement, which he rightly judges to be a feelgood gesture that distracts attention from aggressive research into low-emitting, cost-effective energy technologieswhich is the only realistic way to reduce fossil fuel consumption.

Thus Paris embodies precisely what the green movement worried about after Copenhagen: that a weak and non-binding agreement would be worse than futile. Yet the disastrous Kyoto story is repeating itself; adherence to Paris has become a totem of global determination to tackle climate change while the agreement seems purpose-built to prevent the very economic sophistication on which any low-carbon future depends.

Britain, meanwhile, remains the only major economy legally bound by statute to reducing carbon dioxide emissions by its 2008 Climate Act.


Dit korte filmpje laat zien hoe ingewijden met simpele middelen gesproken tekst in filmpjes onzichtbaar kunnen manipuleren

Fijn hè!? Die nieuwsberichten vanuit de hele wereld rechtstreeks en nagenoeg direct op uw TV

Dit filmpje verklaart heel veel:> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttGUiwfTYvg

Zo dreigt straks de chaos compleet te worden doordat men zich terecht gaat afvragen:

‘Wat en wie is er nog te vertrouwen op deze wereld?’

Fijn dat wij, als lezers van deze site, mogen weten dat vertrouwen nog steeds gerechtvaardigd is. Echter dan wel met hoofdletters geschreven:

Het ROTSVASTE VERTROUWEN in GOD en onze Heer en Heiland Christus Jezus