Feed aggregator

EU-kommissionen vill nu få bort flaskhalsar mellan länderna så att el kan säljas fritt. Svenska hushåll kommer dessvärre att få betala för detta genom högre flaskhalsavgifter och elpriser, skriver företrädare för Villaägarna.

Advokaters oberoende är en grundförutsättning i en demokratisk rättsstat. Oberoendet gör det möjligt att fullt ut tillvarata klienternas intressen – även gentemot staten, skriver företrädare för Advokatsamfundet i en replik.

Om SFI ska vara en verklig språng­bräda in i arbete och egen försörjning måste fokus flyttas från vinst till kvalitet. Kvaliteten varierar kraftigt mellan anordnare, skriver S-politiker i Stockholm.

Från etablissemang och vänsterhåll ska vindkraften täcka vårt elbehov. “Grön energi” ska vara framtiden. Men verkligheten är en helt annan. Europas största vindkraftspark “Markbygden” utanför Piteå har ständigt nya anonyma utländska ägare, livsfarlig arbetsmiljö, stora säkerhetsbrister och dålig ekonomi.

Sverige hade ett av världens mest stabila elsystem som gav mycket låga elpriser. Häften vattenkraft, hälften kärnkraft. Oerhört effektivt. Men politiken förstörde systemet.

Riksdagens majoritet (S, V, MP, C) lade ner sex av tolv kärnkraftsreaktorer. Vi skulle få vindkraft istället. Den gröna energin.

Grön energi är dyr energi

Vänstersidan i Sverige var inte ensam. I Tyskland avvecklade kristdemokratiske förbundskanslern Angela Merkel alla landets över 60 kärnkraftsreaktorer. Man satsade på rysk gas istället. Som om det skulle vara mer miljövänligt. Och säkerhetspolitiskt gångbart. Så kom det ryska anfallskriget mot Ukraina. Tyskland har satt sig i en obegripligt korkad situation. Elpriserna rusade.

Tyskan Ursula von der Leyen brukar i sina tal som EU:s högsta höns, hylla grön omställning och att vindkraft med mera ska ge billig el. Det är rena fantasierna. Hon får sitt mandat av vänstersidan i Europaparlamentet plus borgerliga EPP.

Energisektorn misshandlas grovt av politiker som ingenting begriper. Jag förstår inte hur väljarna kan rösta på dem som avvecklar vårt fungerande välstånd.

Vindkraft är dödlig

Ofta spelar massmedierna med, man stödjer ju vänstersidan i politiken. Men undantag finns. Aftonbladet har gjort ett intressant reportage i två delar om Europas största vindkraftspark, den utanför Piteå. Markbygden består av 600 gigantiska vindsnurror. Det är skrämmande att ta del av hur slarvigt, korrupt och rent livsfarligt vindkraftverk sköts. Ett dödsfall i parken har uppmärksammat bristerna i säkerheten då Arbetsmiljöverket konstaterade flera allvarliga arbetsplatsproblem. En inspektör säger till tidningen att hela parken snart kommer att haverera om inget görs.

Oklara ägare till vindkraftsparker

Ett tydligt tecken på hur osunda och ansvarslösa vindkraftsparkerna drivs är dess oklara ägarförhållanden. Aftonbladet skriver: “I ett anonymt företagskomplex i Amsterdam finns postadressen till den nuvarande ägaren av Markbygden. Här får vi en blå post it-lapp med ett brittiskt telefonnummer till högsta chefen. Han medger att de svenska vindkraftverken dras med ”underhållsrelaterade brister” – och att arbetet med att hitta en ny köpare inte ens har inletts.” Detta sedan pengarna blåste bort på grund av usla elavtal – och kvar lämnades miljarder kronor i skulder.

Om vindkraften vore en så bra lösning som politiker, inklusive EU-kommissionär Ursula von der Leyen, säger skulle de naturligtvis inte drivas av bolag med postadress i ett kontorshotell. Det är tid för ansvarsfulla partier att städa upp i energipolitiken. Regeringen försöker men det tycks gå trögt. Energi och inte minst elförsörjningen är helt fundamental för ett fungerande samhälle. Lekstugan kring energin måste få ett slut.

*

Källa: Aftonbladet (bakom betalvägg): Bilderna inifrån Europas största vindkraftspark (del 1) Fiasko för kinesiska vindparken – miljarderna blåste bort i usla avtal (del 2) och Jakten på vindkraftsägaren – 200 mil från vindsnurrorna (del 3).

Digital campaigning has become central to how political messages are delivered and received

Originally published on Global Voices

A group of youth celebrating the resignation of the Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, after the July revolution. Photo by Bornil Amin on Unsplash. Used under an Unsplash licence.

As Bangladesh heads toward its 13th National Parliamentary Election on February 12, 2026, campaigning is moving beyond street processions and public rallies into the digital sphere. Social media, especially Facebook, TikTok, X (formerly Twitter), and YouTube, has emerged as a key arena where political messages are crafted, debated, and pushed to wider audiences.

What was once considered an informal extension of political communication has now evolved into a core campaign tool, reflecting broader changes in voter engagement and media consumption across the country, mostly via accessible mobile phones. According to the “state of digital” in Bangladesh in 2026 report, Bangladesh had 186 million active mobile connections, about 105 percent of the population. The same report mentions that 82.8 million people, or 47 percent of people, use the internet, and 64 million use social media, mostly Facebook, TikTok, and YouTube.

Read more: The upcoming election will determine the future of Bangladesh’s democracy and reform agenda Social media takes center stage as campaign strategy

Political parties and candidates in Bangladesh are now heavily investing in online outreach. According to a report by the Daily Sun, social media campaigning has become a key component of election strategy, complementing traditional grassroots mobilization. The report mentions that on Facebook, Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) Chairman Tarique Rahman has 5.6 million followers. Bangladesh Jamat-e-Islami Party’s Ameer Shafiqur Rahman has 2.3 million followers, and National Citizen Party (NCP) Convener Nahid Islam has 1.2 million followers on Facebook.

Candidates routinely use videos, live streams, and short posts to communicate directly with voters across constituencies. Political parties and candidates are also using innovative online campaign sites, campaign songs, games, and other interactive content to engage the voters of different constituencies.

With millions of Bangladeshis active online, especially the 39 percent of the population aged 13–34, platforms such as Facebook and TikTok play an increasingly important role in shaping political awareness. Digital campaigning is no longer peripheral; it has become central to how political messages are delivered and received.

Rules for online campaigning

In response to the expanding influence of social media, the Bangladesh Election Commission (EC) has introduced regulations aimed at limiting digital misuse during election periods. Candidates are required to submit details of their official social media accounts in advance, and content that violates the electoral code of conduct is prohibited.

Bangladesh Election Commission head office in Dhaka. Image by the author.

A Daily Sun summary of the election guidelines notes that spreading unverified or harmful information online, including disinformation and personal attacks, may result in penalties. The rules also explicitly ban the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to distort facts, manipulate images or videos, or mislead voters.

The regulations are intended to prevent online campaigning from undermining electoral fairness and transparency.

Misinformation and AI-generated content

Despite these safeguards, misinformation and digitally manipulated content spiked amid concerns about digital campaigns. In an in-depth fact-check, The Daily Star identified nearly 97 pieces of AI-generated content circulating on Facebook ahead of the election. Many of these posts, including deepfakes and other manipulated videos, spread widely and were used to tilt political narratives in favor of competing party camps. A recent AFP fact-checking report also confirms the use of AI-generated content to support various political parties.

Meanwhile, data released by fact-checking group Rumor Scanner — reported by Bangla Daily Prothom Alo — found 268 instances of misinformation spreading across online platforms in a single month, with a large share related to political topics. Facebook hosted most of these misleading posts.

These patterns illustrate how social media, while democratizing access to information, can also become a vector for deceptive political messaging.

Local political voices on social media abuse

Political actors themselves have begun to publicly address the misuse of social media. In a recent Prothom Alo coverage, Mahdi Amin, spokesperson for the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), accused rival groups of spreading widespread misinformation and character-assassination campaigns online ahead of the election. Reports also show how bot-driven waves of fake “haha” post reactions are used to target Facebook posts by activists and politicians across Jamaat, BNP, Awami League, and NCP circles, illustrating how bought engagement distorts public perception and exploits Facebook’s algorithm to suppress the reach of specific posts.

Such incidents capture broader concerns among local political communities about the effects of online campaigns on voter perception and political stability.

At the same time, social media platforms are taking steps to address the situation. TikTok Bangladesh has launched an “Election Information Center” in partnership with the Election Commission, aiming to provide users with official election updates. The move reflects how platforms are trying to offset misinformation by promoting verified information.

Why this matters to global audiences

Bangladesh’s experience mirrors a broader global pattern: social media has evolved from a simple communication tool into a political battleground where narratives are quickly built and amplified to a targeted audience. As Bangladeshi political parties fight for Gen‑Z attention, experimenting with viral content on social media, and confronting misinformation in parallel with street politics, legacy media are used less and less.

For international audiences, examining how digital platforms shape elections in Bangladesh offers a window into the changing nature of political participation and the pressures democracies face when technological change moves faster than oversight.

Written by Mohammad Tarek Hasan

Den verkliga risken för demokratin kan inte vara seminarier under MR-dagarna.

En myndighet ska fatta beslut på saklig grund, inte på stämningar, drev eller politiska tolkningar. Ändå är det svårt att dra någon annan slutsats när Jämställdhetsmyndigheten pausar statsbidrag med hänvisning till att det föreligger en ”viss risk” för att demokratikriteriet inte uppfylls; samtidigt som myndigheten noggrant undviker att förklara vad denna risk faktiskt består i.

Bakgrunden är ett seminarium under Mänskliga rättighetsdagarna som organisationen MÄN arrangerade. Efteråt kritiserades seminariet i den politiska tidskriften Kvartal, med fokus på innehåll, perspektiv och ideologiska tolkningar. Kritiken rörde inte våld, inte uppmaningar till antidemokratiskt handlande, inte brott mot lag. Det handlade om åsikter i ett offentligt samtal.

Frågan måste ställas om riskbedömningen i praktiken vilar på politisk opinion snarare än på saklig prövning

Kort därefter beslutade myndigheten att pausa bidrag och inleda granskning, med motiveringen att det finns en ”viss risk”. Vad risken består i, vilka uttalanden som avses, eller hur bedömningen har gjorts, redovisas inte. Det finns inga konstaterade brister i verksamheten. Inga överträdelser. Inga sakliga fel som pekas ut.

Detta är inte en detalj eller ett misstag i formuleringen. Det är kärnan i problemet.

När en myndighet ingriper utan att redovisa sin faktiska grund, samtidigt som den enda synliga kritiken kommer från en opinionsdriven tidskrift och förstärks av kampanjlogik och näthat, måste frågan ställas om riskbedömningen i praktiken vilar på politisk opinion snarare än på saklig prövning.

Begreppet ”viss risk” är i detta sammanhang väldigt allvarligt. Det saknar nämligen definierad tröskel, metodredovisning och proportionalitet. Allt kan ju alltid beskrivas som en viss risk för något. När ett så vagt rekvisit används för att frysa resurser och i praktiken straffa en organisation som kan tvingas säga upp personal och lokaler, avveckla verksamhet osv, flyttas makten från rättssäker bedömning till godtycke.

Detta blir särskilt allvarligt när det gäller demokratikriterier. De är normativt laddade och måste därför tillämpas med hög precision och transparens. Annars riskerar de att fungera disciplinerande snarare än skyddande. Civilsamhällets aktörer lär sig då inte vad som är förenligt med lag och regelverk, utan vad som uppfattas som politiskt riskabelt att säga. Resultatet blir ett lägre tak för det offentliga samtalet, just det samtal som ofta beskrivs som demokratins själva fundament.

Den verkliga risken för demokratin kan inte vara seminarier under MR-dagarna som klassas som woke, utan att myndigheter börjar fatta ingripande beslut utan verifierbara fakta, på grundval av ospecificerade misstankar. Det skapar osäkerhet, självcensur och försiktighet där det borde råda tydlighet och rättssäkerhet.

Myndigheter måste kunna stå emot yttre tryck och öppet redovisa sina bedömningar på ett sätt som går att pröva.

För en stat som straffar på ”viss risk” är i sig en stor risk.

Anna Ardin, doktorand, civilsamhällesvetenskap 

Inlägget När opinion blir myndighetsbeslut dök först upp på Dagens Arena.

For the first time, the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) commissioned a chapter on climate science for the manual they put out (with the NASEM) for judges, the Reference on Scientific Evidence (4th Edition). This week, a month after it was published, they pulled the chapter out after being pressured by 27 Republican Attorneys General. You can nonetheless read it here.

Some background. The FJC is “the research and education agency of the judicial branch of the United States Government”. As one of its roles, it is tasked to provide educational materials to judges and other court workers about issues that might come up in court, and in particular, on scientific matters that one might not expect judges or lawyers to be expert in. They have codified this information in the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, which is now in it’s Fourth Edition. (Previous editions were issued in 1994, 2000, and 2011).

The 4th Edition had its genesis in a workshop in 2021, and was finally published (after extensive peer review) on Dec 31st 2025. It covers legal scholarship on the use of expert testimony in court cases (noting the Supreme Court’s Daubert standard), as well as primers in the current state of the science across multiple fields (forensics, DNA evidence, mental health, neurology, epidemiology, exposure, statistics, regression, eye witnesses, engineering, computer science, AI, etc.). Notably, it included a chapter on climate science, covering topics such as the greenhouse effect, atmospheric circulation, detection and attribution, and the issues being raised in an increasing number of climate-related cases in the courts. The authors, Jessica Wentz and Radley Horton are a respected and mainstream lawyer/scientist team and the resulting chapter is a clear and concise summary of the topic. So far so good.

Of course, there are groups that would rather not have climate change discussed knowledgeably in the courts, and after the publication of the 4th Edition of the manual, the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee started sending threatening letters to all involved (FN – sorry!) (Jan 16th). Additionally, a group of 27 Republican Attorneys General (led by West Virginia) sent a letter (Jan 29) to the FJC claiming that Wentz and Horton were biased because they have (correctly) stated that the “political sphere in the United States continues to be clouded with false debates over the validity of climate change”. Additionally, they were upset that there are no references to the recent DOE CWG report (Lol).

The real target of the AGs ire is the discussion of attribution, and the notion that there is an emerging consensus that partial attribution of climate damages can be assessed on emitters. This line of thinking is exemplified by recent papers (such as Callahan and Mankin (2025), but is based on more than a decade of work on this topic, and of course is a direct threat to the fossil fuel companies that the WV AG is trying to protect.

The Republican AGs demanded that the FJC remove the chapter, arguing that any official acknowledgement of the science in the Manual would prejudice their cases that are based on, let’s say, “contrary” interpretations of the scientific evidence (or no evidence at all). And without much ado, or even consultation, the FJC did exactly that, putting out an amended Manual on Feb 6th. The only note to mark the deletion is:

No explanation or excuse was noted.

As stated above, this chapter is actually well-written, appropriately peer-reviewed, and deserves a far better fate than to be cowardly disappeared into a memory hole for being inconvenient, so you can download it here. The nice thing about science is that it doesn’t change based on whether a report is published here or there, so feel free to share.

References

1. C.W. Callahan, and J.S. Mankin, "Carbon majors and the scientific case for climate liability", Nature, vol. 640, pp. 893-901, 2025. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-08751-3

The post The Climate Science reference they don’t want Judges to read first appeared on RealClimate.

Med hjälp av assisterad reproduktion kan fler människor idag bli föräldrar. Men önskan om barn måste vägas mot andra värden och vad samhället kan acceptera, skriver debattörer från Statens medicinsk-etiska råd.

Det blir förödande för näringslivets affärsrelationer om konkurs­förvaltarens krav går igenom efter Sernekes konkurs. Misstänksamhet skulle bli den nya normen, skriver Magnus Demervall, Företagarna, i en slutreplik.

Sjuksköterskestudenternas oro gäller kvaliteten i utbildningen. Det ska inte tolkas som motstånd mot akademin, skriver Carl-Axel Palm i en replik.

Att miljökraven i Klarälven nu får genomslag är inte ett hot mot vattenkraften. Det är en förutsättning för det långsiktiga: strömmande vatten och levande landskap, skriver Jari Toivanen och Stellan Hamrin i en replik.

Vi kan inte arbeta mindre, om vi ska ha råd med mer. Det skriver Marcus Dahlsten, Teknikföretagen, i en replik.

The journalist resigned and issued an apology after facing harassment for asking a controversial question

Originally published on Global Voices

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. It also shows the Dang Wangi Police District HQ, where journalist Rex Tan was briefly detained. Photo by CEphoto, Uwe Aranas, Wikipedia. License: CC BY-SA 3.0

Malaysian journalist Rex Tan, formerly of the outlet Free Malaysia Today (FMT), was detained for half a day as he faced a sedition probe over a question he raised in a public lecture.

On January 12, he attended a public conference organized by the International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies titled “Gaza Exposes the Complicity of International Actors,” featuring a British politician, broadcaster, and writer, George Galloway. During the forum, Tan raised a question about combating xenophobia in Malaysia and mentioned bias and racism toward ethnic Chinese communities in Malaysia. The question was as follows:

I think you should rightly observe the parallel between the Palestinian problem and the Chinese problem in Malaya.

Both are British colonial legacy problem, where the Palestinians are seen as the interloper among the Zionists, while the Chinese, at the time, the population, which is about 50 percent of Malayia, was seen as aliens. So, and sadly, this xenophobic mentality is still around today, and I must say, it is way more of a serious magnitude in Palestine.

So I want to ask a more introspective question. I think currently what we are facing here is due to a rather right-wing exclusive nationalism.

Essentially some sort of a synophobic mentality that really see people as ‘us and them.’ And as much as some of the Malay Muslim pro-Palestinian supporters here, they hate the extremist right Zionism, but they themselves also often espouse anti-immigrants or rather exclusive nationalism idea in this country. How can we deal with this rather exclusive way of seeing ourselves and the people around us?

In response, Galloway said it was a “grotesque” comparison, arguing: “I don't think you do your cause any favor by comparing yourself to the Palestinians. The Palestinians are the most savagely repressed people on earth. Now, I haven’t been over all of Kuala Lumpur today, but I didn’t see any tanks. I didn’t see any guns. I didn’t see any trucks. I didn’t see any special roads for special people.”

The exchange was uploaded online and sparked an intense backlash from those who criticized the comparison and accused Tan of inciting communal hatred. Aside from religion and royalty, race is among the highly sensitive topics in multiracial Malaysia, which is about 65 percent Muslim and about 23 percent ethnically Chinese.

FTM was quick to issue a public apology, noting it “regrets the distress our journalist caused at the recent forum on Gaza.” After receiving online threats, Tan resigned from Free Malaysia Today and issued a separate apology.

I am deeply sorry for my poorly constructed question, my failure to take into account its relevance to the event, and for asking it without sufficient consideration of its sensitive nature.

I wish to state here unequivocally that I had not the faintest intention to be incendiary or to pose a racist question, and regret deeply that it has been perceived as such.

I also wish to state that I did not intend to agitate any community — be it the Malays, Chinese, or Palestinians — and I unreservedly regret that my lack of sensitivity has caused tension among Malaysians.

I therefore beseech the public for restraint, and to refrain from sharing, creating, or further commenting on posts that perpetuate this misunderstanding, which may further inflame public discourse.

Despite his apology and his promise to cooperate with authorities, he was still detained on January 17 after being summoned by the police to face a sedition probe. He was released on bail, but his phone was seized for the ongoing investigation. If found guilty, he could be sentenced to up to three years in prison.

In a media interview, Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail urged the public to stop harassing the journalist, as he and his family were being threatened, doxxed, and harassed online. At the same time, he reminded the media to be more circumspect in their statements.

Using social media platforms to issue threats benefits no one. It only adds to the tension.

At the same time, the message is that we must respect sensitivities in a multiracial country so that we can continue to live in peace and harmony.

Media and human rights groups sounded an alarm over Tan’s arrest and his sedition probe. The newly-established Malaysian Media Council said his arrest and detention “appear unnecessary and punitive.”

…this case raises serious questions about the risks faced by media practitioners: can a journalist be deemed to have committed sedition or caused public mischief simply by asking a question at a public forum?

Heavy-handed and punitive action against a journalist has a chilling effect on the media and public discourse, and reflects poorly on a government that has repeatedly committed itself to upholding freedom of expression and press freedom.

The Center for Independent Journalism said authorities should have allowed the Council to resolve the issue.

Given the Malaysian Media Council has also offered its services to facilitate conciliation in good faith, we must question why the authorities have not allowed them to reconcile this matter as is their role. Its position and the abilities it has been equipped with would allow them to deal with this matter in line with international standards whilst meeting the public interest.

Media advocacy group Gerakan Media Merdeka (Geramm) warned that Tan’s arrest could set a dangerous precedent.

Geramm takes the stand that Tan’s arrest risks future criminalisation of journalists who are accused of asking ‘sensitive,’ ‘controversial’ or ‘ignorant’ questions.

Geramm reiterates our position that regardless of differing views on reporting or questioning, media workers should not be subjected to actions that compromise their safety, dignity or ability to work freely.

Global media watchdog Reporters Without Borders said the incident is the latest “episode in the misuse of the country’s Sedition Act, which continues to pose a serious threat to press freedom in Malaysia.”

“It is shocking that in democratic Malaysia, a journalist could be charged on suspicion of ‘sedition’ for simply asking a controversial question in public,” it added.

This is not the first time that Malaysian journalists have faced a sedition probe in the course of doing their work. In 2023, a book author and publisher was briefly arrested for allegedly disrespecting the country’s coat of arms.

Written by Mong Palatino

I flera allmänna val har EU ingripit för att tysta dem som motsätter sig fortsatt migration. Det konstaterar utskott i amerikanska kongressen. GB News intervjuar Charlie Weimers om den allvarliga trenden där EU-byråkratin ingriper i valrörelser.

Nu har amerikanska kongressen publicerat en rapport som visar hur EU-byråkratin aktivt griper in i olika valrörelser för att motarbeta dem som är kritiska mot massmigration. GB News intervjuar Charlie Weimers om utvecklingen.

Kongressrapporten har granskat flera val i Europa och funnit exempel på hur EU-byråkratin bedriver påverkansoperationer för att styra valrörelserna i en viss politisk riktning.

Här är underlaget till slutsatsen om valet i Nederländerna.

Sveriges system för advokater är otidsenligt. Det krävs bättre möjlighet att ingripa mot misskötsamhet och det är inte alls självklart att Advokat­samfundet ska ha flera roller som uppenbart leder till målkonflikter, skriver Adam Danieli, Timbro.

Det är sorgligt att ta del av alla känslomässiga utfall mot USA och dess folkvalde president. Det är så historielöst att man baxnar. Visst finns olika åsikter på de båda sidorna av Atlanten. Ibland mer tillspetsade än annars. Men det är obegåvat att låta känslorna styra. Det gynnar inte Europa – tvärtom.

Nuvarande president provocerar på många sätt, inte minst genom sin önskan att ta över Grönland från Danmark. Något vi inte kan acceptera. Men varför falla för provokation likt ett barn?

Vill Europa hellre se Xi Jinping eller Putin som mäktigaste världsledare, framför Trump?

Det är inte svårt att hålla isär de provokativa utspelen i ord – som ingenting konkret betyder – från reella handlingar som har verkliga konsekvenser. Ändå tycks få i europeiska politiska kretsar klara av den saken. Man låter sig styras av vimsiga känslor. Och provocerar på det sättet fram än mer polariserande utspel.

Rätt svar är att ha is i magen, även om vi som har det beskylls för att vara undfallande mot de burdusa utspelen från Vita huset. De känslostyrda skriker: Man måste svara på oförskämdheterna!

Som om internationell politik avgjordes av dueller om prestige.

Kina växer sig militärt starkt

Nej, det som avgör är styrka och förmåga. Europa har satsat stor möda på att bygga en internationell, regelbunden världsordning. Men har inte backat upp den med styrka och kraft, utan trott att bara ord och namnteckningar på papper skulle vara garanti nog.

Europa släppte in Kina i världshandelsorganisationen WTO 2001. Där finns tydliga regler för hur handel ska gå till. Regler som Kina från början struntade i. Europa såg inte till att upprätthålla reglerna eftersom vi till en början tjänade på att blunda. Vi kunde utnyttja billig arbetskraft och avsaknad av mänskliga rättigheter, vilket gav oss billigare produkter. Vi blundade också för att Kina använde vinsterna för att stärka kommuniststyret och bygga en allt starkare militärmakt – så stark att den börjar utgöra ett hot mot USA:s dominans.

Alltså: Så länge Europa gynnats ekonomiskt av brott mot regelbaserad världsordning har det varit okej. Men USA får inte bryta mot denna ordning.

Ryssland är Europas ansvar

När det gäller Ryssland borde några uppenbara fakta lyftas fram, men som det blundas för.

1) Ryssland ligger i Europa, inte på den amerikanska kontinenten. Varför skulle det då vara mer USA:s uppgift än Europas att försvara demokrati och regelbunden världsordning när Ryssland anfaller Ukraina? Alltså: Ukraina är Europas ansvar snarare än USAs, och särskilt så för dem som avskyr USA-inflytande.

2) När Ryssland ockuperade Krim 2014 beslutade Europa att ta av Ryssland rösträtten i Europarådet för mänskliga rättigheter. Men 2019 röstade majoriteten, inklusive svenska Socialdemokraternas representant för att återge Ryssland full värdighet (SD röstade nej). Alltså: Europa accepterade Krim-ockupationen efter fem år, vilket gjorde att Putin kunde kalkylera med idén att Europa också skulle acceptera att han ockuperade resten av Ukraina.

3) Europa har efter andra världskriget struntat i att bygga militärt försvar. Man bröt konsekvent mot Nato-löftet att satsa två procent av BNP på försvaret. När amerikanska presidenter, från Eisenhower till Trump, klagat på detta har Europa vänt ryggen till och struntat i att ta ansvar. Alltså: Europa har ingen annan att skylla för sin svaga ställning i världspolitiken än sin egen arrogans.

Arrogansen har inga gränser

Denna arrogans lever nu vidare genom att anklaga USA:s folkvalde president för att inte göra som Europa vill och rädda Europa igen. Så som USA gjorde i första världskriget, sedan i andra världskriget och sedan genom Marshallhjälpen och sedan genom upprutning under kalla kriget.

Europa har agerat som en drogmissbrukare gentemot sin familj. Ständigt be om mer pengar men aldrig skärpa sig.

För min del är jag förvånad över att inte USA tidigare agerat mer hårdhänt mot Europa. Redan Eisenhower klagade på 1950-talet över att Europa vägrade ta ansvar för säkerhetspolitiken och rusta arméer. Alltså: USA har varit alltför tillmötesgående mot Europa i mer än ett halvt århundrade. Denna “snällhet” har skadat Europas förmåga att ta ansvar. Man har kunnat övervältra ansvaret på USA.

Det ska sägas, att USA gjort detta också för att man därmed otvivelaktigt varit den världsledande nationen. Men nu när Kina växer sig allt starkare kan inte USA hålla Europa under armarna längre.

Tänk på alternativen: USA eller Kina?

Så, visst är Donald Trump burdus, odiplomatisk och oberäknelig. Men detta hade inte haft någon större betydelse om Europa skött sina kort och tagit ansvar från början. Det är enbart därför att Europa är svagt och illa styrt som vi kan bli offer för Trumps oberäknelighet.

Och den grundläggande frågan alla behöver ställa sig är: Vill vi hellre att Kina blir den dominerande världsaktören? Eller Ryssland? Det är höjden av obegåvat resonemang att svartmåla den amerikanska demokratin, medan man blundar för de gruvliga övergrepp Kina och Ryssland begår.

När Serneke Sverige AB gick i konkurs stod det klart att vissa leverantörer hade gynnats på bekostnad av andra. Det vill vi nu rätta till, skriver Jörgen Wistrand, konkursförvaltare för Serneke Sverige AB, i en replik.

At a public event debating the DOE CWG report, Steve Koonin embarrasses himself further.

This week there was a bit of a peculiar event at the Civitas Institute at UT Austin, with three of the CWG authors (John Christy, Steve Koonin and Ross McKitrick) being rebutted by Andy Dessler (working solo).

The event itself was a rehash of the CWG’s reports ‘findings’ (or rather, a repeat of their cherry picks, uncontextualized statements, and ignoring of the literature), and Dessler somewhat successfully pointing this out. The event seemed a bit rushed (too much content being crammed into too short a time) and is a great example of the applicability of the Brandolini’s Law.

There would be a lot to criticise in the presentations if one wanted (most of this was gone over in the Scientists response to the DOE report that Andy helped organise), but the presentation by Koonin went even further into nonsense territory than the CWG report itself. Apparently, “internal variability” (something noticeably ignored in many claims by the CWG) is the “last refuge of fools and scoundrels” (at least according to Koonin)!

What this stems from is Koonin’s reliance on Nicola Scafetta’s work on evaluating climate models – readers here will know that is a very bad idea, and we went through a lot of this in respect to a GRL paper that Scafetta published in 2022. That led to a whole saga, which took so long that while we were trying to get the 2022 paper retracted on the grounds of being totally wrong, Scafetta basically published the same analysis again (with almost all the same errors and some new ones) in another journal. Our enthusiasm to go another round pointing out his mistakes was limited, and so the second paper still stands nominally unrebutted in the literature despite having been pre-rebbutted by our comment on the first paper (Schmidt et al., 2023). This came up in the ‘internal review’ of the CWG report, where one of the reviewers said that the CWG should deal with our criticism of Scafetta’s work (pointing to the published comment), and were blown off by the CWG who claimed that because they cited the second paper (not the first), our comment was moot. Classic dissembling.

Anyway, Koonin’s presentation at the Civitas event (starts around 20:20 in the video) repeats the errors, but goes even further. First, he notes that some CMIP6 models have climate sensitivities that are too high. That’s fine – I have made the same point here, and in Nature Hausfather et al., 2022. But then he elides from ‘some models’ to ‘the models’ without even taking a breath (Hmm…). He doubles down on Spencer’s cherrypicking (itself not peer-reviewed of course), and claims that people pointing out that something has been cherry-picked are trying to “change the topic”. Yes, that metric that no-one had ever mentioned before Spencer did this analysis is *the* topic that the assessment was designed to address /sarc.

Koonin additionally claims that the mainstream scientists are blaming model-observation discrepancies on internal variability for the last twenty years, while ignoring it for the previous twenty years. Of course, he provides no citation nor evidence that anyone has ever done such a thing. Worse, in response to a suggestion that they utilise the uncertainty in the modeling (esp. the internal variability), he makes an incredible statement (starting at 30:47):

Well, if you do that, it effectively broadens the uncertainty so much as to be almost essentially useless.

Let’s parse this out. He isn’t claiming that the internal variability isn’t real (it is of course). He is claiming that his model-observation comparison doesn’t show any discrepancy if you include the uncertainties and that therefore it’s useless! To repeat, Koonin is stating that he isn’t including the uncertainties because it would undermine the conclusion he is trying to draw.

This is as clear an admission of scientific misconduct as I’ve heard.

He then illustrates this with reference to Tokarska et al. (2020) (Fig 3, Panel A) which is not really trying to do the same thing, but fine. [I think there must be a second half to that slide showing individual runs – but I’m not sure where that would have been from]. However, we addressed this exact issue with the comment on the first Scafetta paper:

Multi-decade temperature differences in ERA5 and CMIP6, showing individual simulations and ensemble means, plotted against Climate Sensitivity.

The question being asked is whether there is a discrepancy between any specific model and the observations. An initial condition (IC) ensemble starts the model with a different weather pattern, but each run has the same forcing. The standard deviation of the IC ensemble is a reasonable measure of the internal variability (i.e. the spread that could occur only as a function of the (unpredictable) weather. The real world can be considered a single realization of the real world climate, so the standard way to assess whether the a model is consistent with the real world is to estimate the probability that the real world result could be part of the model distribution. In practice, one can calculate the 95% confidence interval for the model (based on it’s ensemble) and ask whether the real world data falls within that range. Wherever it is, you can calculate the probability of getting that result, assuming that model distribution. The further away the observation from the model spread, the less likely that it could have generated by that distribution.

So if the real world falls inside the 95% CI, it is clearly consistent with the distribution, even if the ensemble mean is different from the observations. As the signal grows, the spread due to the internal variability will shrink, and discrepancies might emerge more clearly. But no-one is arguing that internal variability should be ignored for one period, and used in another. Rather, it should be used consistently at all times. If that prevents Steve Koonin from trashing the models, so be it.

To go back to the claim though, there are multiple models with sensitivities up to about 5ºC that have surface temperature trends that are compatible with the observations. A few models don’t have sufficient simulations to say, and a few are clearly incompatible. This is what Koonin says:

They say that the fact I can find one starting point that agrees with the data is enough to validated that model. In fact that doesn’t sound right at all. I don’t think that would pass peer review – at least among my peers.

This is not quite an accurate reflection of the mainstream position, nor do his feelings on the issue make sense. The mainstream position is first more nuanced (as explained above); it is not that seeing that observations fall within the spread validates the model, rather if this happens you should not reject that model (a much less onerous claim). But why does this sound strange to Koonin? Is he in the habit of rejecting models that are consistent with observations? And of course, this position has passed peer-review many times, though I will accept that his peers might not agree (which is a statement about his peers, not the claims).

To wrap this up, I updated the figure above to look at a slightly longer period (the change to 2015-2025) using the latest observations from ERA5.

As above, but for a period extending to 2025.

It is still clear that some models are not consistent with ERA5 (notably the five models with the highest sensitivity), but it is also clear that many of them are – and that Koonin’s claims (like Scafetta’s before him) are hogwash. His implicit claim that you should ignore uncertainty if that gets in the way of your preferred conclusion is simply embarrassing for someone who likes to think of himself as an “eminent” scientist.

References

1. G.A. Schmidt, G.S. Jones, and J.J. Kennedy, "Comment on “Advanced Testing of Low, Medium, and High ECS CMIP6 GCM Simulations Versus ERA5‐T2m” by N. Scafetta (2022)", Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 50, 2023. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2022GL102530
2. Z. Hausfather, K. Marvel, G.A. Schmidt, J.W. Nielsen-Gammon, and M. Zelinka, "Climate simulations: recognize the ‘hot model’ problem", Nature, vol. 605, pp. 26-29, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-01192-2
3. K.B. Tokarska, M.B. Stolpe, S. Sippel, E.M. Fischer, C.J. Smith, F. Lehner, and R. Knutti, "Past warming trend constrains future warming in CMIP6 models", Science Advances, vol. 6, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaz9549

The post Koonin’s Continuing Calumnies first appeared on RealClimate.

Det är samhällsförändringarna som skapar ångest hos många unga. Medicinering och psykoterapi kan vara till viss hjälp men det centrala är att flytta fokus till samhället och att ge hopp, skriver debattörer.

I podden Riksronden tar vi i helgen upp den brännande kontroversiella frågan om vad vår tids polarisering i västvärlden beror på. Ett allt mer intressant svar är att kvinnornas inmarsch i politiken skapar motsättningar på ett nytt sätt.

Flera studier visar att kvinnor sätter känslor främst, medan män ser till fakta. Det skapar helt olika sätt att hantera politiska motsättningar. Om detta måste vi diskutera. Vi ryggar inte.