Klimaattopwetenschappers manipuleren informatie, het bewijs

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 november 2009 22:23 schreef ethiraseth het volgende:
Mensen die alleen maar bij gloeilampen kunnen zitten. Het is geen 1980 meer zeg.
[..]

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 november 2009 23:40 schreef Dutchguy het volgende:

[..]

De issue is hoe ver de klimaatdiscussie verpolitiseerd is en het kabinet alvast een voorschot op die discussie neemt door met haar grote harige arm tot achter de voordeur te willen komen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 november 2009 23:43 schreef du_ke het volgende:

[..]

Net zoals ze het aanschaffen van vuurwapens door particulieren heeft verboden? Of dat je verboden is om door rood te rijden of harder dan de snelheidslimiet?

Allemaal verboden die stukken strenger zijn en waar je zelfs voor beboet wordt als je je er niet aan houdt. Consumentenwetgeving is van alle tijden. Of maak je je er ook nog druk om dat je eigenlijk geen wasmiddelen meer kan krijgen met fosfaten?

quote:

Op woensdag 25 november 2009 00:05 schreef Dutchguy het volgende:

[..]

Geef me een goed alternatief voor de gloeilamp tegen dezelfde prijs met hetzelfde vermogen qua lichtopbrengst en gevoelssfeer.

Oh wacht, dat is er niet. Toch maar doordrukken dan.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 november 2009 00:09 schreef Bowlingbal het volgende:

[..]

Dat is er wel.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 november 2009 00:10 schreef Dutchguy het volgende:

[..]

Nope.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 november 2009 07:49 schreef Ringo het volgende:
Gelukkig heb ik inmiddels een hele kast vol gloeilampen, ik heb goed gehamsterd. Dat lelijke tyfuslicht van spaarlampen hoef ik niet in mijn huis.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 november 2009 08:06 schreef breaky het volgende:

[..]

Er zal een tijd komen dat je toch een keer tot je voorraad heen bent....

Ik vergelijk het gebruik van spaarlampen versus gloeilampen maar even tot het gebruik van elektrische auto's versus auto's met verbrandingsmotoren. De invloed daarvan op het wereld klimaat zal waarschijnlijk nihil zijn...maar in je directe omgeving kun je toch al gauw de verschillen merken.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 november 2009 00:05 schreef Dutchguy het volgende:

[..]

Geef me een goed alternatief voor de gloeilamp tegen dezelfde prijs met hetzelfde vermogen qua lichtopbrengst en gevoelssfeer.

Oh wacht, dat is er niet. Toch maar doordrukken dan.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 november 2009 08:31 schreef du_ke het volgende:

[..]

Je moet dan natuurlijk naar de prijs per branduur kijken. Dan ben je met een gloeilamp al niet meer goedkoper uit. Daarnaast gaan de ontwikkelingen in sfeerverlichting zo snel dat er op dat gebied voldoende alternatieven zijn op het moment dat de gloeilamp daadwerkelijk uit de schappen verdwijnt.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 november 2009 08:57 schreef Boze_Appel het volgende:

[..]

Welnee, peertjes worden gewoon uit het buitenland gehaald na het verbod. Nog meer meters maken en nog slechter voor het mileu.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 november 2009 09:21 schreef isogram het volgende:
Minister Cramer heeft op haar weblog uitvoerig gereageerd op de mails:
http://www.vrom.nl/pagina.html?id=45330
[..]

Aldus minister Cramer, die andere mensen wegzet als "types" om op die manier de tegenstanders maar belachelijk te maken. Frappant om te zien hoe de rijen zich sluiten en hoe voorstanders nu zelfs komen met verwijten waar ze zich juist zelf schuldig aan maken: selectief quoten, relevante informatie weglaten, etc. Kortom, om met Cramer te spreken: "net zo lang knippen, plakken en monteren tot je standpunt geloofwaardig is."

quote:

Climate scientist at centre of leaked email row dismisses conspiracy claims
Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia denies emails provide evidence of collusion by climatologists to fix data

The climatologist at the centre of the leaked emails row said today that he "absolutely" stands by his research and that any suggestion that the emails provide evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate or hide data that do not support the theory of man-made climate change was "complete rubbish".

Professor Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, said that the past week had been "the worst few days of my professional life". He added that since the emails were leaked he had received personal threats which have now been passed on to the police to investigate.

In his first full interview since last week's theft, which saw hundreds of emails and documents exchanged between some of the leading climatologists over the past 13 years stolen from the university's servers, Jones defended himself against accusations by climate sceptics that the emails provide evidence of collusion by climatologists to fix data.

"That the world is warming is based on a range of sources: not only temperature records but other indicators such as sea level rise, glacier retreat and less Arctic sea ice," he said. "Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for Nasa and the National Climate Data Centre in the United States, among others. Even if you were to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results. The facts speak for themselves; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them."

Jones accepted, though, that the contents of some of the emails were cause for embarrassment: "Some of the emails probably had poorly chosen words and were sent in the heat of the moment, when I was frustrated. I do regret sending some of them. We've not deleted any emails or data here at CRU. I would never manipulate the data one bit - I would categorically deny that."

He confirmed that all of the leaked emails that had provoked heated debate – including the now infamous email from 1999 in which he discussed a "trick" to "hide the decline" in global temperatures - appeared to be genuine.

"The use of the term 'hiding the decline' was in an email written in haste," he said. "CRU has not sought to hide the decline." (The University of East Anglia has now posted a detailed explanation of why this phrase was used on its website)

Jones said the timing of the theft suggested it was intended to cause maximum embarrassment ahead of the Copenhagen climate talks next month: "One has to wonder if it is a coincidence that this email correspondence has been stolen and published at this time. This may be a concerted attempt to put a question mark over the science of climate change in the run-up to the Copenhagen talks."

But he stressed that he has never wished to get drawn into the political debate about climate change, saying: "I'm a very apolitical person, I don't want to get involved in the politics, I'm much happier doing the science and producing the papers. I'm a scientist, I let my science do the talking, along with all my scientific climate colleagues. It's up to governments to decide and climate science is just one thing they have to take into account with the decisions they have to make."

He added that he had long been under pressure from climate sceptics to further explain his research: "From about 2001/2002 I was getting emails from a number of people involved in the climate sceptic community. Initially at the beginning I did try to respond to them in the hope I might convince them but I soon realised it was a forlorn hope and broke off communication. Some of the emails I sent them subsequently appeared and were discussed on various sceptic websites."

Trevor Davies, the University of East Anglia's pro-vice-chancellor with responsibility for research, rejected calls – including from the Guardian commentator George Monbiot – for Jones to resign: "We see no reason for Professor Jones to resign and, indeed, we would not accept his resignation. He is a valued and important scientist."

Davies said the university had now decided to conduct an independent review which will "address the issue of data security, an assessment of how we responded to a deluge of Freedom of Information requests, and any other relevant issues which the independent reviewer advises should be addressed".

Yesterday, prominent members of both sides of the climate change debate, including the climate change sceptic Lord Lawson, had called for an independent review. Lawson said he believed this should be carried out by the Natural Environment Research Council, a government science funding body.

But a spokesperson for Nerc said it was not a matter for them. "Nerc believes this is a matter for the University of East Anglia - their Climatic Research Unit is not a Nerc unit - so it is for them to decide if they call for an enquiry and if so who should conduct it. Should there be an enquiry we would of course be happy to contribute, if asked."

A spokesperson for the journal Nature said, "In line with our standard policy, if clear evidence were to arise that anything we've published is in question then we'll look into any action that may need to be taken."

quote:

Climatic Research Unit update - November 24, 3.30pm

Statement from Professor Trevor Davies, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research

The publication of a selection of the emails and data stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has led to some questioning of the climate science research published by CRU and others. There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation. CRU’s peer-reviewed publications are consistent with, and have contributed to, the overwhelming scientific consensus that the climate is being strongly influenced by human activity. The interactions of the atmosphere, oceans, land, and ice mean that the strongly-increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere do not produce a uniform year-on-year increase in global temperature. On time-scales of 5-10 years, however, there is a broad scientific consensus that the Earth will continue to warm, with attendant changes in the climate, for the foreseeable future. It is important, for all countries, that this warming is slowed down, through substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to reduce the most dangerous impacts of climate change. Respected international research groups, using other data sets, have come to the same conclusion.

The University of East Anglia and CRU are committed to scientific integrity, open debate and enhancing understanding. This includes a commitment to the international peer-review system upon which progress in science relies. It is this tried and tested system which has underpinned the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It is through that process that we can engage in respectful and informed debate with scientists whose analyses appear not to be consistent with the current overwhelming consensus on climate change

The publication of a selection of stolen data is the latest example of a sustained and, in some instances, a vexatious campaign which may have been designed to distract from reasoned debate about the nature of the urgent action which world governments must consider to mitigate, and adapt to, climate change. We are committed to furthering this debate despite being faced with difficult circumstances related to a criminal breach of our security systems and our concern to protect colleagues from the more extreme behaviour of some who have responded in irrational and unpleasant ways to the publication of personal information.

There has been understandable interest in the progress and outcome of the numerous requests under information legislation for large numbers of the data series held by CRU. The University takes its responsibilities under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Environmental Information Regulations 2004, and the Data Protection Act 1998 very seriously and has, in all cases, handled and responded to requests in accordance with its obligations under each particular piece of legislation. Where appropriate, we have consulted with the Information Commissioners Office and have followed their advice.

In relation to the specific requests at issue here, we have handled and responded to each request in a consistent manner in compliance with the appropriate legislation. No record has been deleted, altered, or otherwise dealt with in any fashion with the intent of preventing the disclosure of all, or any part, of the requested information. Where information has not been disclosed, we have done so in accordance with the provisions of the relevant legislation and have so informed the requester.

The Climatic Research Unit holds many data series, provided to the Unit over a period of several decades, from a number of nationally-funded institutions and other research organisations around the world, with specific agreements made over restrictions in the dissemination of those original data. All of these individual series have been used in CRU’s analyses. It is a time-consuming process to attempt to gain approval from these organisations to release the data. Since some of them were provided decades ago, it has sometimes been necessary to track down the successors of the original organisations. It is clearly in the public interest that these data are released once we have succeeded in gaining the approval of collaborators. Some who have requested the data will have been aware of the scale of the exercise we have had to undertake. Much of these data are already available from the websites of the Global Historical Climate Data Network and the Goddard Institute for Space Science.

Given the degree to which we collaborate with other organisations around the world, there is also an understandable interest in the computer security systems we have in place in CRU and UEA. Although we were confident that our systems were appropriate, experience has shown that determined and skilled people, who are prepared to engage in criminal activity, can sometimes hack into apparently secure systems. Highly-protected government organisations around the world have also learned this to their cost.

We have, therefore, decided to conduct an independent review, which will address the issue of data security, an assessment of how we responded to a deluge of Freedom of Information requests, and any other relevant issues which the independent reviewer advises should be addressed.


Statement from Professor Phil Jones, Head of the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia.

In the frenzy of the past few days, the most vital issue is being overshadowed: we face enormous challenges ahead if we are to continue to live on this planet.

One has to wonder if it is a coincidence that this email correspondence has been stolen and published at this time. This may be a concerted attempt to put a question mark over the science of climate change in the run-up to the Copenhagen talks.

That the world is warming is based on a range of sources: not only temperature records but other indicators such as sea level rise, glacier retreat and less Arctic sea ice.

Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate Data Center in the United States, among others. Even if you were to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results. The facts speak for themselves; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them.

We have been bombarded by Freedom of Information requests to release the temperature data that are provided to us by meteorological services around the world via a large network of weather stations. This information is not ours to give without the permission of the meteorological services involved. We have responded to these Freedom of Information requests appropriately and with the knowledge and guidance of the Information Commissioner.

We have stated that we hope to gain permission from each of these services to publish their data in the future and we are in the process of doing so.

My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well. I regret any upset or confusion caused as a result. Some were clearly written in the heat of the moment, others use colloquialisms frequently used between close colleagues.

We are, and have always been, scrupulous in ensuring that our science publications are robust and honest.


CRU statement

Recently thousands of files and emails illegally obtained from a research server at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have been posted on various sites on the web. The emails relate to messages received or sent by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) over the period 1996-2009.

A selection of these emails have been taken out of context and misinterpreted as evidence that CRU has manipulated climate data to present an unrealistic picture of global warming.

This conclusion is entirely unfounded and the evidence from CRU research is entirely consistent with independent evidence assembled by various research groups around the world.

There is excellent agreement on the course of temperature change since 1881 between the data set that we contribute to (HadCRUT3) and two other, independent analyses of worldwide temperature measurements. There are no statistically significant differences between the warming trends in the three series since the start of the 20th century. The three independent global temperature data series have been assembled by:

• CRU and the Met Office Hadley Centre (HadCRUT3) in the UK.
• The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Asheville, NC, USA.
• The Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), part of the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) in New York.

The warming shown by the HadCRUT3 series between the averages of the two periods (1850-99 and 2001-2005) was 0.76±0.19°C, and this is corroborated by the other two data sets.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its 4th Assessment Report (AR4) published in 2007 concluded that the warming of the climate system was unequivocal. This conclusion was based not only on the observational temperature record, although this is the key piece of evidence, but on multiple strands of evidence. These factors include: long-term retreat of glaciers in most alpine regions of the world; reductions in the area of the Northern Hemisphere (NH) snow cover during the spring season; reductions in the length of the freeze season in many NH rivers and lakes; reduction in Arctic sea-ice extent in all seasons, but especially in the summer; increases in global average sea level since the 19th century; increases in the heat content of the ocean and warming of temperatures in the lower part of the atmosphere since the late 1950s.

CRU has also been involved in reconstructions of temperature (primarily for the Northern Hemisphere) from proxy data (non-instrumental sources such as tree rings, ice cores, corals and documentary records). Similar temperature reconstructions have been developed by numerous other groups around the world. The level of uncertainty in this indirect evidence for temperature change is much greater than for the picture of temperature change shown by the instrumental data. But different reconstructions of temperature change over a longer period, produced by different researchers using different methods, show essentially the same picture of highly unusual warmth across the NH during the 20th century. The principal conclusion from these studies (summarized in IPCC AR4) is that the second half of the 20th century was very likely (90% probable) warmer than any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely (66% probable) the warmest in the past 1300 years.

One particular, illegally obtained, email relates to the preparation of a figure for the WMO Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 1999. This email referred to a “trick” of adding recent instrumental data to the end of temperature reconstructions that were based on proxy data. The requirement for the WMO Statement was for up-to-date evidence showing how temperatures may have changed over the last 1000 years. To produce temperature series that were completely up-to-date (i.e. through to 1999) it was necessary to combine the temperature reconstructions with the instrumental record, because the temperature reconstructions from proxy data ended many years earlier whereas the instrumental record is updated every month. The use of the word “trick” was not intended to imply any deception.

Phil Jones comments further: “One of the three temperature reconstructions was based entirely on a particular set of tree-ring data that shows a strong correlation with temperature from the 19th century through to the mid-20th century, but does not show a realistic trend of temperature after 1960. This is well known and is called the ‘decline’ or ‘divergence’. The use of the term ‘hiding the decline’ was in an email written in haste. CRU has not sought to hide the decline. Indeed, CRU has published a number of articles that both illustrate, and discuss the implications of, this recent tree-ring decline, including the article that is listed in the legend of the WMO Statement figure. It is because of this trend in these tree-ring data that we know does not represent temperature change that I only show this series up to 1960 in the WMO Statement.”

The ‘decline’ in this set of tree-ring data should not be taken to mean that there is any problem with the instrumental temperature data. As for the tree-ring decline, various manifestations of this phenomenon have been discussed by numerous authors, and its implications are clearly signposted in Chapter 6 of the IPCC AR4 report.

Included here is a copy of the figure used in the WMO statement, together with an alternative version where the climate reconstructions and the instrumental temperatures are shown separately.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 november 2009 08:42 schreef Ringo het volgende:
Dat gloeilampverbod is een staaltje effectief lobbyen gebleken van milieu-extremisten als Wijnand Duyvendak, de beroepsoplichter van GroenLinks. Zowel CDA als D66 hebben al hun spijt uitgesproken over deze draconische maatregel. Alleen idioten als Diederik Samson zijn er nog altijd gelukkig mee. Maar die ex-roeibotenvouwer van Greenpeace kan je natuurlijk niet serieus nemen.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 november 2009 13:14 schreef LinkseFrieseVegetarier het volgende:

[..]

En CDA en D66 zijn een toonbeeld van lobbyismeloze intelligentie?

quote:

Op woensdag 25 november 2009 08:42 schreef Ringo het volgende:
Dat gloeilampverbod is een staaltje effectief lobbyen gebleken van milieu-extremisten als Wijnand Duyvendak, de beroepsoplichter van GroenLinks. Zowel CDA als D66 hebben al hun spijt uitgesproken over deze draconische maatregel. Alleen idioten als Diederik Samson zijn er nog altijd gelukkig mee. Maar die ex-roeibotenvouwer van Greenpeace kan je natuurlijk niet serieus nemen.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 november 2009 15:34 schreef john2406 het volgende:

[..]

Hier heb je wel gelijk in vindt ik zelf, maar wat als.
Je een lekkende schakkelaar hebt, en daar zijn er veel van, die nog een bepaalde lekspanning door laten.
Houd in dat je fitting dan spaarlampen verslindt, gaan dan binnen afzienbaren tijd stuk, er is dan wel garantie op die spaarlampen dat doet er niet aan af.
Maar tijdens de productie van die spaarlampen wordt toch ook energie verspilt dan.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 november 2009 15:52 schreef isogram het volgende:

[..]

Als de afgelopen dagen iets is gebleken, is het wel dat de voorstanders minimaal zo selectief quoten. Sterker nog: ze doen aan misleiding, verzwijgen data en manipulen data naar hartenlust. Wellicht quoten sceptici selectief, maar de voorstanders gaan nog drie, vier stappen verder dan dat.

Een paar mooie overzichten op rij:
- http://bishophill.squares(...)ate-cuttings-33.html
- http://ecotretas.blogspot(...)sor-de-verdades.html

quote:

Op woensdag 25 november 2009 16:05 schreef isogram het volgende:

[..]

Uit de gehackte mails komt duidelijk naar voren dat voorstanders van de klimaathype selectief quoten uit de beschikbare data. De hoeveelheid posts is enorm omvangrijk. Het is zinloos om eerst door honderden mails te lopen waar geen dubieuze zaken in staan. De focus ligt op mails waarin WEL dubieuze zaken voorkomen. En als dat er nou maar een paar waren... - nee, het zijn er tientallen, zo niet honderden.

quote:

In mijn optiek moet je toch wel ziende blind en horende doof zijn, wil je hierin geen patroon herkennen van stelselmatige manipulatie en verdraaiiing van feiten. En wat nog wel het meest trieste is: omdat ze hun krachten zo massaal bundelen en zich beroepen op "de grote concensus", worden burgers extreem goedgelovig en worden de overgebleven critici belachelijk gemaakt en door het slijk gehaald.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 november 2009 16:21 schreef isogram het volgende:
Ik kan alleen de conclusie trekken dat je extreem naïef en goedgelovig bent.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 november 2009 16:45 schreef Lyrebird het volgende:

[..]

Ik verbaas me ook een beetje over de felheid en vasthoudendheid die Monolith hier laat zien. Van iemand met een wetenschappelijke achtergrond verwacht ik meer bezinning en inzicht, maar zijn reacties doen me denken aan iemand die z'n ogen sluit en oren dichtstopt en blablablablabla blijft roepen als het NOS journaal de uitslag van Ajax-PSV door meent te moeten geven vlak voor Studio Sport.

Er is niets mis met twijfel.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 november 2009 16:45 schreef Lyrebird het volgende:

[..]

Ik verbaas me ook een beetje over de felheid en vasthoudendheid die Monolith hier laat zien. Van iemand met een wetenschappelijke achtergrond verwacht ik meer bezinning en inzicht, maar zijn reacties doen me denken aan iemand die z'n ogen sluit en oren dichtstopt en blablablablabla blijft roepen als het NOS journaal de uitslag van Ajax-PSV door meent te moeten geven vlak voor Studio Sport.

Er is niets mis met twijfel.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 november 2009 17:16 schreef Matteüs het volgende:

[..]

Wellicht dat hij ook van de subsidiepot trekt?

quote:

Op woensdag 25 november 2009 17:18 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

Ach kijk, na de amateurpsychologie komt Lenin er nog even bij kijken.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 november 2009 17:25 schreef Matteüs het volgende:

[..]

Nou, het is een vraag he? Je had ook gewoon met "ja" bijvoorbeeld kunnen antwoorden.
Maar je vond het fatsoenlijker op deze wijze te reageren. Och... met dit soort opmerkingen ben je natuurlijk geen haar beter dan je iedereen die je tegenspreekt uitmaakt.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 november 2009 17:27 schreef Monolith het volgende:
blabla

quote:

Op woensdag 25 november 2009 17:29 schreef Matteüs het volgende:

[..]

Mij best joh. Enige waar je goed in bent is hoogdravend op anderen neerkijken.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 november 2009 16:05 schreef isogram het volgende:

[..]

Uit de gehackte mails komt duidelijk naar voren dat voorstanders van de klimaathype selectief quoten uit de beschikbare data. De hoeveelheid posts is enorm omvangrijk. Het is zinloos om eerst door honderden mails te lopen waar geen dubieuze zaken in staan. De focus ligt op mails waarin WEL dubieuze zaken voorkomen. En als dat er nou maar een paar waren... - nee, het zijn er tientallen, zo niet honderden.

Mails waaruit je een patroon kunt afleiden, namelijk dat er stelselmatig en jarenlang wordt geknoeid met allerlei data. Mails waaruit blijkt dat wetenschappers elkaar naar de mond praten en dat ze er alles aan doen om critici zwart te maken. Mails waaruit blijkt dat er wordt gefraudeerd, dat mensen zijn ontslagen als ze iets te kritisch waren, enzovoort.

En dit zijn dan alleen nog maar mails die bij de hack zijn aangetroffen! Mails die allang verwijderd zijn, omdat ze TE gevoelig zijn, staan hier niet eens tussen. En persoonlijke gesprekken evenmin.

In mijn optiek moet je toch wel ziende blind en horende doof zijn, wil je hierin geen patroon herkennen van stelselmatige manipulatie en verdraaiiing van feiten. En wat nog wel het meest trieste is: omdat ze hun krachten zo massaal bundelen en zich beroepen op "de grote concensus", worden burgers extreem goedgelovig en worden de overgebleven critici belachelijk gemaakt en door het slijk gehaald.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 november 2009 08:57 schreef Boze_Appel het volgende:

[..]

Welnee, peertjes worden gewoon uit het buitenland gehaald na het verbod. Nog meer meters maken en nog slechter voor het mileu.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 november 2009 17:29 schreef Matteüs het volgende:

[..]

Mij best joh. Enige waar je goed in bent is hoogdravend op anderen neerkijken.

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 november 2009 05:33 schreef Lyrebird het volgende:

[..]

Wat denk je hiervan Monidique, gevalletje projectie?