Klimaalarmistisch unterwanderte Behörden haben nun einen effektiven Weg gefunden, ihre Ideologie mit Gewalt durchzusetzen. In den USA hat jetzt die Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) allen Abweichlern von der Klimaalarm-Linie gedroht, die Katastrophenmittel zu streichen. Nur US-Bundesstaaten, die ein klimaalarmistisches Glaubensbekenntnis abgegeben haben, kommen in den Genuss der Zahlungen. Man könnte fast meinen, das wäre Erpressung. philly.com und WUWT haben die Einzelheiten.
————————-
Wer zahlt, beeinflusst das Ergebnis von Studien? Dann gibt es hier eine faustdicke Überraschung: Michael Mann hat Forschungsgelder der Kohleindustrie angenommen! Und es scheint in Ordnung gewesen zu sein, jedenfalls hat sich niemand beschwert.
Was in der Wissenschaft – vor allem im kürzlichen Fall Willie Soon – ein Riesenproblem darstellen soll, ist in der Politik Tagesgeschäft. Die Welt brachte am 31. März 2015 eine Übersicht, der Lobbyisten mit den tiefsten Taschen:
Parteispenden – Wer von wem wie viel Geld bekommt
Im Wahljahr 2013 haben Unternehmen und Verbände 24,2 Millionen Euro an die bis dahin im Bundestag vertretenen Parteien gespendet. Die mussten nun alle Spenden von mehr als 10.000 Euro offenlegen. Unser Diagramm zeigt: Welches Unternehmen aus welcher Branche hat welcher Partei wie viel Geld gespendet? […] Die wichtigsten Spender kommen aus jenen Branchen, die der Staat stark reguliert. Die er in schnellem Takt mit neuen Gesetzen und Verordnungen konfrontiert. Die viel zu gewinnen haben – und viel zu verlieren, wenn sie nicht gut lobbyieren. 1,7 Millionen Euro zahlte die Finanzindustrie, eine Branche, die die deutsche Politik beäugt wie keine zweite. Vor allem Versicherer setzen auf Parteispenden. Alle großen Namen finden sich unter den Gönnern, von der Allianz über die Münchener Rück bis zu Ergo und den R+V Versicherungen.Ganzen Artikel auf welt.de lesen.
Das bringt uns zum wichtigen Punkt, dass Politiker und Wissenschaftler wohl Spenden annehmen können, egal aus welcher Richtung, solange sie ihre Unabhängigkeit behalten. In der Wissenschaft ist es zudem deutlich einfacher. Die Studienergebnisse werden von der jeweiligen Fachzeitschrift einer unabhängigen Begutachtung unterzogen, so dass Trickserei verhindert wird. Es sollte daher viel mehr diskutiert werden, ob es in der Forschung qualitative Mängel gibt, anstatt Verschwörungstheorien zur angeblichen Wissenschaftsfälschung durch Spender in die Welt zu setzen.
Scott Armstrong plädierte am 24. März 2015 in der Washington Times in dieselbe Richtung:
Missing the mark on climate change skepticism
It’s not about the money, it’s about the science
During the past few weeks, a series of articles in the press have implied that Willie Soon, a well-known global-warming skeptic, had violated ethical standards by failing to disclose information about research funding.
Attacks on the integrity of global-warming skeptics are nothing new. As a co-author of two papers with Mr. Soon, I’ve been subjected to them myself. This time, however, the attacks have reached a feverish pitch. In addition, the government has gotten involved. Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva of Arizona has requested information from seven universities about funding for research by global warming skeptics, while Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer of California, Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island asked for similar information from 100 corporations. With respect to our papers, the press repeated innuendos that Mr. Soon received funds from Southern Co. He did not, which is a matter of public record. Other than salaries from our employers, Mr. Soon, co-author Kesten Green and I received no money for our two papers at issue. Interestingly, it is our impression that our employers believe in the “dangerous man-made global warming hypothesis.”
Fortunately, science provides a procedure for resolving concerns about possible bias: replication. This eliminates the need to speculate because it requires full disclosure of data and procedures. It allows researchers to assess, for example, whether unexplained revisions in the data might consistently favor one hypothesis, as has been shown, for example, in research supporting forecasts of global warming. Replication can also reveal whether researchers have properly disclosed their data. For example, in preparing my testimony for Mrs. Boxer’s 2008 U.S. Senate hearings on polar bear populations, I requested data from government-funded research that led to a dire forecast. My request was refused. Replications may also yield evidence of improper scientific procedures, such as “advocacy”, whereby researchers seek evidence to confirm a favored hypothesis. Researchers using advocacy nearly always confirm their hypothesis.
Weiterlesen in der Washington Times.
————————-
Gute Nachrichten aus der Gemüsewirtschaft: Die Bohnen sind sicher. Auch im Zeitalter des Klimawandels. Die Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) berichtete am 25. März 2015 in einer Pressemitteilung über erstaunliche Zuchterfolge:
Discovery of beans that can beat the heat could save “meat of the poor” from global warming
As a result of a major breakthrough, beans – once feared to be a casualty of climate change – are now set to withstand extreme temperatures, protecting a staple food of the poor in developing countries. Amidst fears that global warming could zap a vital source of protein that has sustained humans for centuries, CGIAR bean breeders announced today the discovery of 30 new types, or lines as plant breeders refer to them, of “heat-beater” beans that could keep production from crashing in large swaths of bean-dependent Latin America and Africa.
“This discovery could be a big boon for bean production because we are facing a dire situation where, by 2050, global warming could reduce areas suitable for growing beans by 50 percent,” said Steve Beebe, a senior CGIAR bean researcher. “Incredibly, the heat-tolerant beans we tested may be able to handle a worst-case scenario where the build-up of greenhouse gases causes the world to heat up by an average of 4 degrees Celsius (about 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit),” he said. “Even if they can only handle a 3 degree rise, that would still limit the bean production area lost to climate change to about five percent. And farmers could potentially make up for that by using these beans to expand their production of the crop in countries like Nicaragua and Malawi, where beans are essential to survival.”
CGIAR researchers had previously warned that rising temperatures were likely to disrupt bean production in Nicaragua, Haiti, Brazil, and Honduras, while in Africa, those warnings had focused on Malawi and the Democratic Republic of the Congo as the most vulnerable, followed by Tanzania, Uganda, and Kenya. “As a result of this breakthrough, beans need not be the casualty of global warming that they seemed destined to be, but rather can offer a climate-friendly option for farmers struggling to cope with rising temperatures,” said Andy Jarvis, a CGIAR climate change expert.
Many of the new heat-tolerant beans developed by the CGIAR scientists are “crosses” between the “common bean”—which includes pinto, white, black, and kidney beans—and the tepary bean, a hardy survivor cultivated since pre-Columbian times in an area that is now part of northern Mexico and the American southwest. Often called the “meat of the poor” for the affordable protein it provides, the crop is a vital foundation of food security for more than 400 million people in the developing world. Beans are a highly nutritious food, offering protein, fiber, complex carbohydrates, vitamins and other micronutrients. In addition to heat tolerance, CGIAR experts are simultaneously breeding for higher iron content to enhance the beans’ nutritional value.
Weiterlesen auf cgiar.org.
