Johan Lindberg

Cancer genomics researcher | Focus on applied biotechnology | Sponsor of Genomics @ProBioTrial | My views are my own

[Peter Wennblad @peterwennblad]

Blev uppringd av en röstmottagare i Järva nu ikväll. Denne berättade att hen redan i augusti ringde Aftonbladet - två gånger - om oegentligheterna i förtidsröstningen.

Men tidningen gjorde inget med uppgifterna.

[Peter Wennblad @peterwennblad]

Agendaredaktionen på SVT hörde av sig, och undrade om jag kunde vara med på söndag – för att svara på frågor om hur min och andras rapportering kan drabba den somaliska gruppen i Sverige.

Jag tackade nej. Och föreslog att Vänsterpartiet borde komma till studion.

[Peter Wennblad @peterwennblad]

Jag har ägnat veckan åt att prata med röstmottagare i Järva.

Det här är deras berättelse. Om kaos, klanröstning och fusk i en skala de aldrig tidigare varit med om.

Och det handlar återigen om Vänsterpartiet.

https://t.co/XTS8XAAvkT

[Bjorn Lomborg @BjornLomborg]

Fossil China vs Green hype

You're told China is green

Reality: China is predominantly fossil fuel-powered, as is the rest of the world

China's renewable energy share 40% in 1971 when poor (wood, dung)

As average Chinese got 35x richer over the period, fossil fuels maxed at 2024

https://t.co/abqXj353Pj

You can see all the references in my Twitter thread:
https://t.co/GnpumjIdHO

[Chris Martz @ChrisMartzWX]

Remember this?! 🤣

During the UN Climate Conference last November, the Brazilian government had to charter two cruise ships, the Costa Diadema and the MSC Seaview, to house over 10,000 attendees after many of them complained about the lack of hotel accommodations and A/C.

The cruise ships are powered by marine-grade diesel.

[Matt Ridley @mattwridley]

And yesterday the BBC made the whole thing out to be about party politics adding in a single sentence that "Republicans think Fauci knew it came from a lab, for which there is no evidence", ie, inaccurate and editorialising.

It would be more accurate to have said:

"Republicans have shown that Fauci thought it might have come from a lab, a theory supported by a huge amount of evidence".

[Culture Crave 🍿 @CultureCrave]

‘Spider-Man: Brand New Day’ officially had the biggest domestic opening day of all time with $168M🕷️ 💰

[Chris Martz @ChrisMartzWX]

My position on climate change in a nutshell:

1⃣ 𝐇𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐠𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝟏𝟕𝟓 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬?

— Yes, but it has been warming since at least 1750. Only since ~1950 or so has there been any potentially significant anthropogenic influence. How can anyone on the alarmist side explain the previous 200 years? What caused the initial warming? What caused the warming between 1910 and 1945, which is ~40% of post-1850 warming, but only ~10% of emissions? So, if natural variability hasn't contributed to any warming since 1850 (which is assumed in the climate models), then you are ignoring that.

2⃣ 𝐈��� 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐠𝐥𝐨𝐛𝐚𝐥 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐚𝐧-𝐦𝐚𝐝𝐞?

— I think at least 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒 of it has been. I don't know how much exactly because it cannot be measured. Perhaps 25% or 50%. Maybe 75%? Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is in fact a “greenhouse gas” (GHG). All else being equal, adding more of it to the atmosphere should cause at least some warming; that is, ~1°C (~1.8°F) per doubling of its concentration, plus any positive feedbacks that act to amplify it (the Planck feedback, which makes the sum of feedbacks net negative, is already accounted for in the RF2xCO2 calculation).

In theory, this explanation makes sense. It's radiative transfer physics. Some of it is basic math, some of it is more complicated, but it is well-understood. But a challenge in actually attributing GHG emissions to all recent warming is that the natural energy flows in and out of the Earth's climate system cannot be measured with the accuracy and precision needed to ascribe all recent warming to GHGs. The uncertainty on the TOA flux is about 5-10 W/m², which is much larger than the estimated Earth energy imbalance (EEI) allegedly from CO₂ on the order of 0.8–1.2 W/m². What's more, the climate models are artificially tuned such that there can be no natural causes of warming, CO₂ is added, then it's declared that CO₂ is the only cause of global warming since 1850.

3⃣ 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐮𝐫𝐛𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞?

— I think that urban sprawl and land use have been significant contributors to local + regional warming trends. Theoretically, this could explain part or even most of the warming globally outside the north polar region, which is mostly rural. We are investigating this in more detail because we are convinced that urban influences have not entirely been removed from the temperature record.

4⃣ 𝐈𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐮𝐧𝐮𝐬𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐝 𝐨𝐫 𝐮𝐧𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐝?

— I don't think so. Alarmists always bring up the “rate of change” argument in threads, but the idea that the recent warming spike is unprecedented in the last few thousand years is based on Michael Mann's infamous tree ring-based “Hockey Stick” graph from MBH (1998, 1999) and the alleged independent look-a-like “verifications” that followed (e.g., PAGES2K). But the attempts to verify it with different proxies all used the same (or a similar) methods that will generate hockey stick-shaped graphs from red noise. The shape of the graphs are largely a statistical artifact, not an accurate representation of global climate variability over the last 2,000 years. I tested this myself using random data. Ex-post correlation screening always produces a hockey stick shape.

5⃣ 𝐈𝐬 𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐞?

— Not really. There have been no increases in floods, droughts, thunderstorms + tornadoes + hailstorms, tropical cyclones, winter storms, or wildfires that can be attributed to GHG emissions at a global scale.

There are definitely regional increases and decreases in some of these event types that are within the bounds of natural variability. In the case of certain drought types (e.g., hydrological and ecological) and wildfires that have increased regionally, that is usually attributable to land use change + poor water resource management and poor forest management, respectively. Evidence that GHG forcing has led to an increase in said events is, in my assessment, weak.

You can maybe argue an increase in heatwaves and heavy rainfall since 1950 globally, but the increase in heavy rainfall occurred suddenly around 1990, which is largely an artifact of the change to automation and more efficient rain gauges. There is also a lot of data (usually legitimate extreme Tmax and precipitation values) that get falsely marked as “missing” in the digitized data, which means they get missed in every analysis published in journals and on databases. We are finding that when you look at the original paper forms, most “missing” data aren't actually missing and so we have to go in and correct the records. This is a major problem in the U.S. (in fact, filling all of the missing 20th century rainfall data in Texas in turns an increase in the top 1% of heavy rainfall events per station to a slight negative trend since 1900).

I assume this problem exists outside the U.S., but at this point in time, I can't be too sure. I haven't looked into it yet.

6⃣ 𝐀𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 “𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫𝐩𝐫��𝐧𝐭𝐬” 𝐨𝐟 𝐦𝐚𝐧-𝐦𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠?

— No, not really.

All global warming, natural or man-made, will result in higher latitudes warming faster than the mid-latitudes and land heating up faster than water (and by extension, the Northern Hemisphere warming faster than the Southern). So, while these changes would be consistent with GHG forcing, it's also consistent with changes in solar activity, cloud cover changes, etc.

The cooling in the stratosphere since the late 1970s is probably due to CO₂. So, at least some of the warming in the troposphere since then is due to CO₂. But not all of it can be attributed to CO₂ necessarily because the physics of heat transfer in the troposphere are far more complex than that of the upper atmosphere where radiation is king and the physics are simpler. In the troposphere, you have convection and precipitation processes (latent heating) that are highly uncertain and these processes can change naturally. The fluxes on these are larger than the relatively small EEI estimated by CERES instrumentation and assumed to be due to CO₂.

7⃣ 𝐈𝐬 𝐠𝐥𝐨𝐛𝐚𝐥 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐝𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐬?

— As far as I can tell, no. The quality of life on Earth has never been better than it is today, and it is only projected to improve through 2100 by almost every measurable metric. We can adapt to whatever climate changes there are just like we always have. But just like with any climate change that has ever occurred, natural or man-made, there will be pros and cons to it depending on where you live.

I am what you call a “lukewarmer.”

I do not deny that there is anthropogenic influence on the climate system, but I'm also not running around like a hysterical chicken either.

There are far more important environmental problems that need to be addressed that are within our control.

[Piers Morgan @piersmorgan]

These diaries are very damning. Fauci comes across as a fame-hungry narcissist who regularly said different things in private about Covid to what he told the world publicly.

[Alina Chan @Ayjchan]

https://t.co/EJUGPshkIq

[Hans Mahncke @HansMahncke]

Justice for the people who created Covid and those who covered it up is important but it is not an end in itself. Treating this merely as a question of punishing Fauci or exposing the deep state misses the point almost completely.

The central fact is that a deadly virus was made in a lab and then unleashed on the world, and that nothing has been done to stop it from happening again. As a reminder, the Wuhan lab was also playing around with MERS viruses, which are far more lethal than SARS viruses. That is an active and civilization ending threat.

So the real purpose of exposing Fauci and dismantling the Covid origin lies is to force public recognition of what happened and prevent the next lab made pandemic from finishing what Covid started.

Humanity has entered an era in which small groups of people, with relatively little money and easily accessible technology, can create viruses capable of killing millions or worse. That threat dwarfs everything else we obsess over, including nuclear war and artificial intelligence.

[Alina Chan @Ayjchan]

New Proximal Origin slack messages released: "most scientists I talk to believe there is a likely connection to the lab - people that are themselves doing GOF and culture-type of experiments, they know the risks and don’t seem to think that a natural explanation is more likely"

[Ebba Busch @BuschEbba]

Visst känns det lite konstigt? Klargörande av LKAB.

[Bjorn Lomborg @BjornLomborg]

Less Global Fire

Halfway through 2026, the world has burned at record-low levels for more than three months

Every continent is below average, and Africa, Americas, and Europe are at record lows

Media only showing stuff burning leaves us badly informed

https://t.co/iDqlYckvRT

You can see all the references in my Twitter thread:
https://t.co/c1gWhtRaBe

[Peter Wennblad @peterwennblad]

Den som säger nej till ny kärnkraft måste presentera ett tekniskt trovärdigt alternativ. Inte politiskt önsketänkande.

https://t.co/zypImkC4xM

[Christer Sfeirكريستر @ChristerSfeir]

Det mest intressanta efter Egyptens förlust mot Argentina var inte resultatet. Det var reaktionen.

När ett lag leder med 2–0, släpper in tre mål och förlorar matchen finns det en självklar fråga att ställa: Vad gick fel på planen?

I stället fylldes sociala medier av anklagelser mot domaren, FIFA och påstådda konspirationer. Förklaringen skulle återigen finnas utanför den egna prestationen.

Detta är ett mönster som sträcker sig långt bortom fotbollen. I stora delar av Mellanöstern är konspirationsteorier inte ett undantag utan ett standardverktyg för att slippa självkritik. När något går fel är det nästan alltid någon annans fel: väst, Israel, CIA, FIFA, domaren eller någon diffus “agenda”. Allt utom den egna oförmågan.

Det är en kultur som är djupt destruktiv. För den som alltid ser sig som offer har ingen anledning att förändras. Självrannsakan ersätts av självömkan.

Visst kan domare göra misstag. Visst kan enskilda beslut påverka matcher. Men inget domslut tvingar ett lag att tappa en tvåmålsledning. Tre insläppta mål är sällan resultatet av en internationell komplott.

Den obekväma sanningen är att mästarlag vinner trots tveksamma domslut. De försvarar ledningar, anpassar sig och hittar sätt att avgöra matcher. Förlorare letar syndabockar.

Det är också därför många samhällen fastnar i ett permanent tillstånd av frustration. Om varje misslyckande förklaras med yttre krafter blir den egna handlingsförmågan obefintlig. Ansvar blir något som alltid ligger hos någon annan.

Fotboll är förstås bara fotboll. Men reaktionerna efter matchen säger något större. De visar hur djupt rotad offermentaliteten kan vara och hur svårt det blir att utvecklas när varje motgång omedelbart förvandlas till ännu ett bevis på att världen är emot dig.

Den verkliga vägen framåt börjar med en betydligt tråkigare mening:

Vi ledde med 2–0. Sedan släppte vi in tre mål. Där börjar analysen.

[Matthew Doyle @MattDoyle76]

tactical preview of norway vs. england

[Piers Morgan @piersmorgan]

Wow… 🔥🔥🔥🔥
Sensational goal by a sensational player. Talk about leading from the front, @HKane has turned this game on its head with pure genius.
Captain Fantastic!!! 👏👏

[Chris Martz @ChrisMartzWX]

Sort of amazing that European “net zero” policies won’t do squat to stop climate change. Might as well install the A/C and quit virtue signaling.

Also, heatwaves are no more evidence of climate change than cold snaps are evidence against it. It’s summertime. It’s weather.

[Carl-Oskar Bohlin @CarlOskar]

Till detta kan väl också nämnas att DN har skrivit minst 7 dedikerade artiklar om Energimyndigheten och rebellmamman sedan ärendet började, men inte sagt ett knyst hittills idag (18:55) om att rebellmamman förlorade sitt mål mot staten i den huvudsakliga delen.