• 這個話題是空的。
正在檢視 30 篇文章 - 1 至 30 (共計 50 篇)
  • 作者
  • #3442

      It seems the more that science supports notions the world is warming because man is pumping CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the more strident become some of the chief

      Global warming deniers n sceptics

      – at times, can almost see rabid righties frothing at the mouth.

      Lately, been some ballyhoo about a Channel 4 documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle – in which, argued the sun is behind recent changes, and several scientists wheeled out as sceptics re greenhouse gases. But, seemed that show employed smoke n mirrors. Here are excerpts of transcript of ABC (Australia) interview with American scientist Carl Wunsch, Professor of oceanography at the Massachussetts Institute of Technology, who was interviewed for the documentary – appeared in original version, but whose remarks were eventually edited from the work.

      I was told that this was to be a film about the science of global warming, and that it would be an opportunity for me to explain that it is a very complicated problem … There are a number of issues. There’s one point in the film where I was attempting to explain that the ocean contains a very large amount of carbon dioxide that is there naturally. …

      It was put into the film in such a way, in the context that it was put to have me saying that, "Well, carbon dioxide occurs naturally in the ocean and so whatever is going on is all natural," which in some sense turned my point on its head. Or if you like, completely removing the main point, which is while the carbon dioxide in the ocean is primarily there naturally, having it expelled through warming is not necessarily natural. …

      What I thought I was doing, as I said, was making a film about the science of global warming. …

      It’s not a science film at all. It’s a political statement. …

      The changes that we’re seeing today are consistent with a great deal of what we know about the climate system, where there’s very little argument about the effects. So, for example, adding carbon dioxide very rapidly that is over periods of decades, which nature doesn’t do itself, we can calculate, these are calculations that go back almost 100 years, how much the earth should warm on average. We tend to see that the pattern of warming where more of it takes place at the poles are consistent with an anthropogenic input. Is there is no proof? Well, there is no proof, but science is very rarely about proof, science is about plausibility. Most of the people who work in this subject without guaranteeing anything will say, "It seems very likely that we are seeing human induced warming because it is taking place on time scales that nature does not normally produce".

      There is the argument in that film that it’s all due to the sun. There is absolutely no evidence, apart from the distortions they made in the graphs in that film in the version that I saw, there’s no absolutely no evidence that what we’re seeing is due to solar forcing. Will I guarantee what we’re seeing is due to anthropogenic causes? No. Do I think it’s very likely that it is due to anthropogenic causes, and we should react on that basis? Yes, I do, it’s very worrying.

      My words were twisted in global warming documentary: expert

      Update, 22 July 2008, from the Independent:

      A Channel 4 documentary which claimed that the idea of man-made climate change was a fraud and a conspiracy has been censured by the broadcasting regulator. Ofcom.

      The Great Global Warming Swindle, written and directed by Martin Durkin, misrepresented the views of the Government’s former chief scientific adviser Sir David King, Ofcom said yesterday in a long-awaited judgement.

      The programme was further found to have unfairly treated Sir David, the American oceanographer Professor Carl Wunsch and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and to have breached the section of the Broadcasting Code relating to impartiality.

      The broadcast angered Britain’s science community, from the Royal Society down, who accused Mr Durkin of distorting evidence and playing fast and loose with the facts.

      Several people who took part said their views had been misrepresented, including Professor Wunsch, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen, the director of the Danish National Space Centre.

      The Great Global Warming Swindle was welcomed by a number of right-wing commentators – strange bedfellows for someone with connections to Living Marxism – but sometimes the far right and the far left have much in common.

      C4’s climate change documentary ‘was unfair but not misleading’




        這是我對 Martin Durkin 在《澳洲人報》上發表的一篇文章的回應, 對抗暖化的狂熱分子。未發布回覆;不知道為什麼。

        然而,正如馬丁·德金(Martin Durkin)所熟知的那樣,它來自科學家:



        許多其他科學院和科學組織都支持 IPCC 的結論。”


        “落後的偏執”?? – 好悲傷;全球暖化事關現在與未來。


        「上帝保佑澳洲。 DVD 很快就會發行。” – 我希望讀者不要被杜爾金圓滑的推銷術所迷惑(哦,那些喜歡我的紀錄片的人是如此精彩和理智……當你在看的時候,也許給我一些錢。)

        – 如果你向下滾動,包括科學家的反駁,包括英國皇家學會的新聞稿:


          我針對 scienceblogs.com 上的一個專案發布了以下內容:

          至於我,我認為論文可能是對的,也可能是錯的,但我在任何東西上看到“Heartland Institute”,就會想哇! – 如果這裡有任何真相和平衡,我會感到驚訝。#39;

          – 並立即收到了來自該研究所的電子郵件。

          我的貼文是由一篇科學部落格文章引發的,標題為: 危言聳聽的全球暖化主張在科學審查下會消失嗎? ——正如你所預料的那樣,《Chigaco Times》發表了一篇同名文章,其中有一些來自右撇子及其同類的愚蠢言論。

          該博文引用了 Heartland Institute 上的一篇文章,標題為: 喜馬拉雅冰川正在成長…令全球暖化危言聳聽者感到困惑 本文包含以下聲明:


          – 這讓我很驚訝,所以用谷歌搜尋資訊。很容易找到,紐卡斯爾大學在論文的新聞稿中說:


          山區氣候變遷趨勢可預測水資源 山區氣候變遷趨勢可預測水資源 – 因此本文僅涉及喜馬拉雅山的一個地區,該地區的結果(和條件)與其他地方不同。那麼,該研究所選擇性地使用資訊——我想,歪曲事實的程度接近於說謊。不管怎樣,我從該研究所發來的電子郵件是一封通用的電子郵件,包括:

          我擔心你對中心研究所有錯誤的印象。我們是位於芝加哥的自由市場智庫。我們是一個無黨派組織,相信自由市場為社會和經濟問題提供了最佳解決方案。我們不代表任何商業利益。 …… [等等等等]我們可能在哲學上存在分歧,但我認為我們正在努力完成同樣的事情。

          Heartland 對學校選擇和醫療改革特別感興趣。

          此致, 湯姆‧斯威斯 (Tom Swiss) 主任 – 公共關係中心 The Heartland Institute

          我給湯姆回了郵件,說他們試圖表明全球暖化不是問題;我試圖強調科學表明它是主要問題。 (也應該提到他在這裡光顧)。沒有反應。

          該研究所的維基百科條目顯示他們從埃克森美孚獲得了大量資金。此外,該研究所長期以來一直支持吸煙,其中包括菲利普莫里斯公司的資金: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute 所以,我建議改個名字,叫無心學院。

          2012 年 2 月 16 日更新,在一些洩露的文件顯示 Heartland' 試圖嘲笑全球暖化科學的策略以及來自神秘「匿名捐助者」的資金後,BBC 網站上發布了新聞。

          當歐洲還在沉睡時,有人將一堆 Heartland Institute 內部文件郵寄給了一些部落客,包括 desmogblog 和 思考進步 – 從那以後,這兩個人和其他人 發布了文件 在線的。

          從文件中可以清楚地看出一件事,那就是 Heartland Institute 在很大程度上支持了 非政府國際氣候變遷專門委員會 (NIPCC),一個旨在反映 政府間氣候變遷專門委員會 (IPCC) 透過製作報告淡化全球暖化的程度以及溫室氣體排放與造成全球暖化的關係。

          下一個目標似乎是學校。該計劃是資助顧問 David Wojick 開發用於課堂的模組。





          這位男士(已註明性別)去年捐贈了不到 $100 萬,略低於該研究所收入的四分之一。

          但與他 2008 年貢獻的 $4,610,000 相比,這只是小事一樁——相當於該組織全年預算的 58%!



            新聞周刊文章, 氣候變遷否認者:資金充足的機器 各界人士都對商業界的質疑聲熱火朝天。包括《投資者商業日報》的撰稿人,出於某種原因,他的文章包括:

            1633 年,伽利略·伽利雷因「堅持許多人所傳授的錯誤學說」(即地球繞太陽運轉)而受到審判。在《新聞周刊》看來,伽利略是公認「共識」的「否認者」。你知道這種類型的駭客,例如哥白尼,他對地球是宇宙中心的事實提出質疑,或是哥倫布,他對地球是平的國際共識提出質疑。



              如果你想了解一些關於全球暖化的歇斯底里和扭曲的信息,Newsbusters 網站似乎是一個不錯的選擇。儘管試圖對科學變暖嗤之以鼻,但似乎很高興地同意,當事情看起來可能沒問題時,變暖正在發生——正如俄羅斯的一些人所暗示的那樣(關於,呃,俄羅斯,而不是整個地球)。在某位自稱為「經濟學家、企業主…」(所以,不是科學家)的怪人的一篇文章中,引用了消息人士的話:

              莫斯科能源研究所教授弗拉基米爾·克里緬科(Vladimir Klimenko) 表示,隨著俄羅斯漫長而沉悶的冬季變得更加溫暖,取暖費用將節省數十億美元,抑鬱症病例也會減少。該研究所的實驗室由國營石油和天然氣公司資助。天然氣公司。

              – 注意 Vlad the Kilmenko 的資助:埃克森美孚的迴響!項目結論包括:


              – 我還沒看過科學家否認地球過去曾變暖;相對於人類歷史大部分時期的溫暖程度,加上暖化的速度,都被視為問題。可笑的是,Newsbustes 應該指責任何人的政治議程:該網站將自己標榜為「揭露和打擊自由媒體偏見」。 俄羅斯歡迎全球暖化作為其所有祈禱的答案 ——連這個標題都很愚蠢!確實是「所有的祈禱」!必須衝刺;感覺有點膽怯


                剛剛在《新聞周刊》專題上看到了一篇相當瘋狂的文章,該組織自稱為AIM – 媒體的準確性(“準確”是從極右扭曲的角度來看的? – 頭版故事包括一個解釋“看到我們的自由派媒體如何對待布希是令人著迷的」外交政策事務的管理。)
                類似 新聞終結者;甚至稱 Newsbonkers 的故事「令人著迷」。







                  環城公路上扭曲的科學惡霸 喔天哪,哦天哪——「紐倫堡審判」。這是多麼大的侮辱,包括對任何讀過福克斯胡言亂語的人來說。這篇文章被稱為“扭曲的科學”,但這裡的真相不僅被扭曲,而且被誇大,被誇大了。



                    成年科學家、神學家、歷史學家、考古學家和其他追求事實和客觀真理的人都植根於現實,並在新資訊出現時不斷調整他們的結論、理論和假設。那些忽視事實、堅持過時資訊或徹頭徹尾謊言的人很快就會陷入狂熱。 [呃,就像最近否認遊說團體的狂熱一樣?]


                    – 天哪,這個可憐的小伙子看起來幾乎要口吐白沫了。


                    - 的確!您有多少次注意到懷疑論者得到了能源公司的支持,和/或都是頑固的右派?


                      從名為 CitizenLink 的網站 – 在那裡還可以了解諸如性危機之類的內容。




                      只有大約三分之一的福音派人士將全球暖化列為「首要任務」。他們對這個問題的評價低於調查中其他 80 個群體中的任何一個。福音派的首要任務是教會的健康。

                      CitizenLink 的總編輯兼氣象學家 Stuart Shepard 表示,主要新聞媒體應該為這種炒作負責。

                      「如果人們從主流媒體獲取訊息,他們只能聽到一方面,」他告訴《焦點家庭新聞》。 “有些頂尖科學家和研究人員對有關全球暖化的無恥說法持懷疑態度,他們提出了一些基於科學的可靠論點,但你永遠不會從晚間新聞中知道這一點。”







                      我明白了——所以,如果你碰巧所在的地區正遭受另一場大型颶風襲擊,而且威力不斷增強,或者你受到長期乾旱或嚴重洪水的影響,只要確保你有一個堅強的家庭.... ..



                        讀一點有關全球暖化的文章,你很快就會發現,懷疑論者(又稱否認主義者)中只有少數真正的科學家——其中最著名的是美國環境學教授美聯儲·辛格(Fed Singer )。

                        早在 2003 年,辛格就對此持懷疑態度,他宣布:

                        每 1500 年全球暖化勢不可擋



                        Realclimate 發文反駁了艾佛瑞在關於這本書的演講中提出的一些關鍵觀點:

                        您可以在 ExxoSecrets.org 上了解辛格教授及其與埃克森美孚資金的聯繫:
                        DeSmogBlog 上有更多關於 Fred 的資訊:
                        S·弗雷德·辛格 – 指出最近的報告稱“辛格隸屬於不少於 11 個接受埃克森美孚資助的智庫和協會”,並補充道。 “辛格自己的‘科學與環境政策項目’(SEPP) 已從埃克森美孚獲得了 $20,000 美元。”


                          Really, many a global warming "skeptic" should be more laughable than treated as if serious people. Retired Canadian professor Timothy Ball makes a strong bid for being among the more comical denialists.

                          Heck, I have a thread here suggesting Comical Ali has been recruited to say global warming isn't real, but a few minutes reading about Timothy Ball and find he almost outdoes Comical Ali.

                          I just noticed Timothy Ball's name in news item on National Geographic; this includes:

                          Timothy Ball chairs the Scientific Advisory Committee for the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, a federally incorporated nonprofit in Canada. He says his skepticism is based on assumptions about global warming that have never been confirmed. "In this case it is assumed carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that will trap heat in the atmosphere, that the levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide will increase because of human industrial activity and specifically the burning of fossil fuels, and that atmospheric carbon dioxide will double," he said. Ball said that this hypothesis became fact before the research had begun, "because it fit a political agenda and the views of the environmentalists."


                          Reading this, looked like some Ballocks in these quotes; including the very strange "it is assumed that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that will trap heat in the atmosphere".

                          Note to ex-Prof Ball – and Nat Geo news team: carbon dioxide is a known greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere. See, for instance: NCDC:Greenhouse Gases from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

                          Interesting, too, that Ball alleges the greenhouse effect hypothesis had political origins. Yet, read a little and soon find Ball is associated with groups etc funded by oil industry money. One of them dubbed Friends of Science – a name George Orwell could have loved, as questions science change, does not disclose funding sources yet perhaps gets money from oil industry etc. Friends of Science – Wikipedia entry

                          There's strong article by Charles Montgomery, which first appeared in the Globe and Mail, centred on Timothy Ball. Includes:

                          Leaders throughout Europe have accepted the IPCC position on climate change, and have been looking for ways to take collective action, primarily via the Kyoto Accord. Yet North Americans have lagged behind, hamstrung by a lingering debate in the media and among politicians about climate science. … who are the donors? No one will say. "[The money's] not exclusively from the oil and gas industry," says Prof. Cooper. "It's also from foundations and individuals. I can't tell you the names of those companies, or the foundations for that matter, or the individuals."

                          When pushed in another interview, however, Prof. Cooper admits, "There were some oil companies." [PR Company boss James Hoggan, who has couple of people investigating skeptics' funding]: 'I don't think that the people who are involved in this should be able to get away with it. My goal is to find out as much as we can about these people and make it public. Who are they? Who is paying them? What motivates them? How is it they can sleep at night?" '

                          Mr. Cool Nurturing doubt about climate change is big business

                          See also brief Bio of Ball, w some of his Ballocks, on DeSmogBlog. Dr. Tim Ball: The Lie that Just Won't Die

                          From here and other info, soon find he can't even get basic facts about himself right, let alone re warming: has claimed to have been a professor for 32 year – true figure, 8 years; and to have the first PhD in climatology, when others had such PhDs before him: and his PhD in science/geography.

                          Plus, maybe only four papers published in peer reviewed journals; none dealing with human impacts on climate; none since he retired in 1996. Hardly seems the right guy, then, to make assertions like "The majority of the scientists who are on the Kyoto and global warming bandwagon know nothing about the science…"

                          Err, Doc Ball – do you happen to have a mirror handy? – look in it and you might recognise yourself here.

                          Update, 21 January 2011: ex-Prof Ball has been peddling more twaddle, in Canada Free Press – which seems a bastion of denialism, yet has clearly found Ball proved too outlandish even for this stance:

                          On January 10, 2011, Canada Free Press began publishing on this website an article by Dr. Tim Ball entitled “Corruption of Climate Change Has Created 30 Lost Years” which contained untrue and disparaging statements about Dr. Andrew Weaver, who is a professor in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, British Columbia.

                          Contrary to what was stated in Dr. Ball’s article, Dr. Weaver: (1) never announced he will not participate in the next IPCC; (2) never said that the IPCC chairman should resign; (3) never called for the IPCC’s approach to science to be overhauled; and (4) did not begin withdrawing from the IPCC in January 2010. 

                          As a result of a nomination process that began in January, 2010, Dr. Weaver became a Lead Author for Chapter 12: “Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility” of the Working Group I contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC.”  That work began in May, 2010.  Dr. Ball’s article failed to mention these facts although they are publicly-available.

                          Dr. Tim Ball also wrongly suggested that Dr. Weaver tried to interfere with his presentation at the University of Victoria by having his students deter people from attending and heckling him during the talk.  CFP accepts without reservation there is no basis for such allegations. 

                          CFP also wishes to dissociate itself from any suggestion that Dr. Weaver “knows very little about climate science.”  We entirely accept that he has a well-deserved international reputation as a climate scientist and that Dr. Ball’s attack on his credentials is unjustified.

                          CFP sincerely apologizes to Dr. Weaver and expresses regret for the embarrassment and distress caused by the unfounded allegations in the article by Dr. Ball.

                          Apology to Dr. Andrew Weaver

                          Yikes! I haven't seen original article, but seems only thing Ball got right in his piece was Dr Weaver's name!


                            I’ve never really liked Bjorn Lomborg, who shot to fame as supposed former environmentalist w claims that should we attempt to combat warming, we’d waste money that could be used to help the world in other ways. Always struck me as being rather like saying well, the house may be on fire but battling the fire will be tough, and would mean we couldn’t do so much work to re-paint the walls and improve the upholstery – and anyway, some people say the fire won’t be too bad. Strikes me, too, as very self important fellow. Already seen his claims re being former environmentalist even dodgier than Timothy Ball’s re being expert on man-made climate change. Knew of new Lomborg book; haven’t even laid eyes on it. Glad to see review in Globe and Mail that slams the book – tho sadly, the idiots who take comfort in Lomborgism will surely like the book, which can help them continue living in fools’ paradise where can drive SUVs and burn and consume and burn without consequence. From the review:

                            In high-school biology class, we used to do an experiment with fruit flies. You put flies and food in a jar, screw the top on tight and wait to see what happens as the flies reproduce like mad. The goal is to see at what point the limits of the jar – air, food, space – begin to affect the ability of the fruit flies to exist. At some point, the jar becomes inhospitable and the flies die en masse. If Bjorn Lomborg, Danish author of Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming, were to write up that high-school experiment, he would focus on the point just before the flies began to hit the limits. He would wax on about how the population of flies had never been stronger, trot out statistics to show how astoundingly well the population had reproduced over time, and gush boyishly about the excellent living conditions in the jar. … he would be correct on carefully selected points of fact, but fatally incorrect about the larger picture, or the meaning of the information he was looking at. This is the trick he plays in Cool It, and it is the same tack he took in The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World (2001). … He’s not a scientist, and the book of science, alas, is closed to him. His work betrays, embarrassingly, that he doesn’t understand biology or how living systems work or any of the basic principles of scientific inquiry. … Lomborg has now proved beyond a doubt that he is incapable of contributing anything of merit to scientific discourse.

                            The Pollyanna of global warming


                              The Conservative Voice – a US website – carries one of the battiest articles by a skeptic I’ve seen yet. Attempts to attack Al Gore, but just looks seriously off-kilter. Includes guff like:

                              Gore is an embarrassment to the nation and should be recognized for being a despotic fool not someone who promoted the cause of peace. … Al Gore is a lying demagogue. Only fools like the mainstream media and left wing Marxist idiots would believe such a brain-dead imbecile or a shrewd conniving political exploiter. Global warming is a fool’s folly. Al, “We the People” are not idiots. … Folks, carbon gases and man causing global warming just ain’t so regardless how many people say it is. We the People will suffer greatly if we don’t realize what the Al Gore global warming agenda really is. Gore is promoting a communist one world order through international taxation and control over nation states. It will destroy us.

                              The article is peppered with quotes, including from Adolf Hitler and fellow Nazi Paul Joseph Goebbels – and, bizarrely, Carl Sagan. Sagan quoted saying, “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge — even to ourselves — that we’ve been so credulous.” – Freudian slip by the article writer? – as Carl Sagan was among the first scientists to warn of the perils of global warming, and our writer clearly a bamboozled chap. Lest you want to read this codswallop, it’s at: Al Gore’s Global Warming Lies


                                Newsbonkers (err, Newsbusters) perhaps a perennial place of silliness re global warming: never mind science, let’s try n blast liberals. Tho complains of liberal bias in (US) media, got a couple of items appreciating a tv report trotting out stale arguments and same old scientists (err, Timothy Ball as a climate change expert? puhleaze, good for Ballocks is all), and arguing climate change is a none issue. In one item, mysteriously says: "Despite recent developments, man can’t control the weather, much less the climate. " Err, Hello – we’re not talking about controlling the climate; this is about changing it adversely, by accident. Got some posters who might be trying to be comedians, or perhaps are serious, with things like:

                                You have to watch these liberals when they talk about the children. It’s obvious they’ve found a way to indoctrinate them, to their way of thinking, and it’s going to be difficult to make them look at the truth. … On this issue, we’re going to have to depend on foreign countries to bring us the truth.

                                – and which foreign countries might these be, what with the US being one of most backwards nations re climate change? North Korea, perhaps? see this and other daftness at: John Stossel Questions Inconvenient Truths on MSM View of Global Warming


                                  A scientific paper that’s just out says that it’s impossible to predict with certainty just how bad climate change will be (I’ve posted to new thread re this). Led to one of the most stupid blog posts I’ve seen, on American "Thinker". Includes:

                                  an entire Global Warming fraud industry has grown up, based on years of pseudo-scientific false alarms, and feeding scare headlines without end around the world. But the science is finally clear: Any reasonable evidence [sic] is not only missing, but can in principle not be obtained in a system as complex as the earth climate. End of story — at least among scientists with a shred of integrity left.

                                  SCIENCE: Earth climate is too complex to predict Well, what bone-headed, crass crap. Not only does the writer confuse "reasonable evidence" with information needed for detailed modelling, but he also gets whole argument utterly wrong – as well as being curiously selective in what science he likes: ie most climate change science wrong, but when paper re uncertainty comes out it’s correct. I’ve posted to the writer’s blog:

                                  Suppose some pinko-liberal or even commie country were to go to war with the US of A – exactly how many people would die? Or even if some terrorists let off a few dirty bombs in some US cities, how many would die now and in future, inc from side effects? You can’t predict for sure? Then – according to your absurd piece on American Idiot (Thinker? – hahahaha, gimme a break) these are not real threats, and we shouldn’t do anything to prevent them happening.

                                    News piece on Canada.com has some pretty damning looking claims re IPCC, by one Vivian Gray. Includes:

                                    Dr. Gray’s mission, in his new role as cofounder of The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, is to stop the IPCC from spreading climate-change propaganda that undermines the integrity of science.

                                    “The whole process is a swindle,” he states, in large part because the IPCC has a blinkered mandate that excludes natural causes of global warming.

                                    Dr. Gray is one of the 2,000 to 2,500 top scientists from around the world whom the IPCC often cites as forming the basis of its findings. No one has been a more faithful reviewer than Dr. Gray over the years — he has been an IPCC expert almost from the start, and perhaps its most prolific contributor, logging almost 1,900 comments on the IPCC’s final draft of its most recent report alone.

                                    Dr. Gray was asked to endorse this [IPCC] reform effort, but he refused, saying: “The IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only ‘reform’ I could envisage would be its abolition.”

                                    IPCC too blinkered and corrupt to save

                                    I hadn’t heard of Vincent Gray. Did a bit of googling, and noticed that – like me – he has a PhD in chemistry from Cambridge University; so far so good, perhaps.
                                    But then, found a short profile on DeSmogBlog – where it says

                                    A search of 22,000 academic journals shows that Gray has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change. Gray has published peer-reviewed scientific work on coal with the last article being published 17 years ago.

                                    Listed as a member of the Scientific Advisory Committee for the Natural Resource Stewardship Project (NRSP), a lobby organization that refuses to disclose it’s funding sources. The NRSP is led by executive director Tom Harris and Dr. Tim Ball. [oh dear, Dr Tim who’s prone to Ballocks – see above]

                                    Vincent Gray
                                    – hmm, a member of a committee that refuses to disclose funding sources… – and the IPCC is corrupt, eh?


                                      Over on ICECAP – some website I hadn’t heard of that likes to decry global warming – there’s short item by John Coleman that’s attracted attention on right-wing blogs and in the Daily Telegraph.


                                      It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. …

                                      I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won’t believe a me, a mere TV weatherman …

                                      I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct.

                                      Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

                                      Ah, he’s read "dozens of papers".

                                      And this the man who has been quoted as saying "Being a TV weatherman in San Diego is an outrageous scam," John Coleman

                                      Now, the Daily Telegraph ran article on Coleman’s thoughts, w article calling him "Weather Channel boss" – not noticing, it seems, he was turfed out of the Weather Channel some years ago, and the channel now presents info on global warming issue. Ah well, seems Coleman’s effort has proved another straw to clutch at for global warming denialists.

                                      One more thing that occurred to me, after seeing re Coleman: denialists seem to often be getting on in years; maybe they care little re the future, figuring they won’t see much of it, so doesn’t really matter what they say or write.


                                        BBC News website has strong series on global warming scepticism, by environment editor Rickard Black. One article looks at supposed bias within science against sceptics, who like to allege their views are muffled. Includes:

                                        Of all the accusations made by the vociferous community of climate sceptics, surely the most damaging is that science itself is biased against them. … I invited sceptics to put their cards on the table, and send me documentation or other firm evidence of bias. … Stefan Rahmstorf from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, who is something of an anti-hero to sceptics’ groups as he believes IPCC projections of sea-level rise are far too conservative, had heard this argument before, and he wrote in telling me it was far from convincing. "How likely is it that my funding would suffer if I found a good alternative explanation for the observed global warming, or that I would have trouble publishing it (assuming it would be methodologically sound, of course)?" he asked. "Quite the contrary, I would see it as a path to certain fame! Scientists always strive to find something radically new and different – just reconfirming what is already quite well-known is boring, and certainly will not get you the Nobel Prize. … The sum total of evidence obtained through this open invitation, then, is one first-hand claim of bias in scientific journals, not backed up by documentary evidence; and three second-hand claims, two well-known and one that the scientist in question does not consider evidence of anti-sceptic feeling. No-one said they had been refused a place on the IPCC, the central global body in climate change, or denied a job or turned down for promotion or sacked or refused access to a conference platform, or indeed anything else. If there is an anti-sceptic bias running through the institutions of science, it is evidently keeping itself well hidden. … But I will say this; if someone persistently claims to be a great football player, and yet fails to find the net when you put him in front of an open goal, you cannot do other than doubt his claim.

                                        Climate science: Sceptical about bias


                                          A few days ago, I noticed on Google News an item with speech by Nigel Lawson – father of luscious cook Nigella, and former UK chancellor – to a New Zealand business group, in which he ridiculed global warming. Can’t find his speech text just now; but remember it had something re IPCC saying warming would cause only v small slowdown in rate of global economy rise: something which surprised me, and which I can’t find in IPCC synthesis report (which does, however, suggest wouldn’t slow economy much to take measures to mitigate against warming: I’m not sure if Lord Lawson hadn’t confused this with effect of warming).

                                          Also, he suggested that IPCC scenarios set warming in next hundred years as no more than 4C; actually, can find 6.4C as highest figure. He had puerile way of suggesting a 3C rise (cherry picking the average forecast) by saying we can live in places from Helsinkin to Singapore: smacks of stupidity as well as smugness, with no notion of effects on ecosystems, which are already showing strains w far smaller warming; and of fact the IPCC says warming to continue for centuries: so if old farts like Lawson have their way, many generations of people will have to deal with warming impacts.

                                          New Zealand Herald quoted Lawson as saying:

                                          The more one examines the current global warming orthodoxy, the more it resembles a Da Vinci Code of environmentalism. It contains a grain of truth – and a mountain of nonsense.

                                          “We appear to have entered a new age of unreason, which threatens to be as economically harmful as it is profoundly disquieting.

                                          – yes, and Lawson has clearly staked his place on the side of unreason, aiming to discount concerns of scientists who actually know about climate, ecosystems and so forth, while trying to tell business people that it’s ok to keep on as we are – after all, Lawson can expect to be dead and gone by the time the main climate change impacts are felt.

                                          Guardian website has long blog post criticising Lawson for his stance. Includes:

                                          Lawson’s concern is that nothing interferes with globalisation, but he ignores the fact that climate change could destroy more demand-and-supply chains around the world than new government policies ever could.

                                          More importantly, however, the callousness underpinning the argument is reprehensible. The losers in this case won’t pay with their stock options, houses and retirement income. They will pay with their lives. And the winners might yet join them.

                                          Lawson’s line is the worst kind of self-satisfied I’m alright Jack and good luck to the rest of you argument I’ve heard in a long time. He talks of adapting and of building seawalls to stop the rising tides, safe in the knowledge that his personal wealth and the wealth of his home nation will protect him from the worst of any climate disaster.

                                          Learn to swim

                                          Climate change sceptics can no longer argue with the evidence that the planet is warming. Instead they say we’ll just have to adapt


                                            Wired News has item on some guff from Rush Limbaugh – who’s evidently a right wing ranter who’s famous in the US – inc comment that, “we are so insignificant. We couldn’t cause global warming; we couldn’t cause global cooling; we can’t do diddly-squat. We’re just inhabitants here.”
                                            Rush Limbaugh Takes On Quantum Physics (and Global Warming)

                                            I’ve added comment, including:

                                            If we humans are “just inhabitants”, wonder what Limbaugh might reckon to bacteria – heck, you can’t even see em, so what are those pinko liberal leftie scientists doing saying they transformed the early atmosphere and still have a huge impact? Sheesh!

                                            this is not just being something theoretical to chat about: global warming an issue to affect everyone, no matter their political persuasion (one of dumbest things I’ve heard anyone tell me, was from woman saying she didn’t believe in global warming as she’s a conservative…)


                                              在小霍爾曼·詹金斯(Holman Jenkins Jr)(他是誰?)在《華爾街日報》發表悲慘評論後,阿爾·戈爾可能也有同樣的想法。








                                                ThinkProgress 上有一篇文章,介紹了美國大選的幾位共和黨候選人以及他們對全球暖化的有些滑稽的看法,包括湯普森相當奇怪的想法:



                                                只是一分鐘都不要認為你會被允許以遏制全球暖化的名義立法改變我的生活方式。決不。我喜歡我的 SUV,並且會保留它。我也更喜歡傳統燈泡,因為它們可以提供更好品質的光線。此外,我將購買和使用我選擇的任何自然資源,並且我不會容忍一些愚蠢的環保極端分子告訴我其他的情況。


                                                在我看來,隨著科學的解決(而且,不用介意鏈接列表,它是 - 就像板塊構造或進化一樣;我們都知道這很明顯:二氧化碳等是已知的溫室氣體,我們正在添加更多大氣層,所以不是火箭科學來預測結果[準確預測,現在情況不同了]),現在的問題是這種粗魯的自私,人們對地球的其他部分和未來毫不關心——這比只是 CWIAS。而且,還有一群膽怯的貓的問題;只是太害怕而不敢做正確的事。




                                                  我寫的這篇文章是關於國際政策網絡的肯德拉‧奧康斯基(Kendra Okonski)的文章「危言聳聽不是應對氣候變遷的方法」。發現這篇文章非常不平衡,我重新檢查了網絡,得知它已經從埃克森美孚公司收到了超過$390,000 美元——這無疑是全球變暖“懷疑論者”最臭名昭著的支持者。






                                                  總體而言,奧康斯基的文章似乎源於對做正確事的恐懼,以及對採取經濟學家建議的措施可能會損失世界收入 1% 的恐懼。由於氣候變遷是真實存在的,其結果不確定但可能具有破壞性,讀到更多拖延的呼聲令人震驚。


                                                    如果我沒記錯的話,令人畏懼的重量級拳擊手邁克·泰森(Mike Tyson)的一場比賽是與一位專家形容為“在他自己家裡甚至不是家喻戶曉的名字”的人進行的。

                                                    透過閱讀參議員詹姆斯·英霍夫 (James Inhofe) 向參議院提交的一份報告,我想起了這一點,其中引用了 400 多名「傑出科學家」的言論和資料。聲稱駁斥科學的人為全球暖化。




                                                      Here's another letter I've sent the South China Morning Post, responding to letter from Viscount Monckton.

                                                      Dear Sir: It was interesting to see that Viscount Monckton of Benchley – who once wrote an article titled "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS", recommending quarantine for all HIV carriers – has written to the South China Morning Post, attempting to put the editors right regarding global warming.

                                                      Sadly, Monckton fails to muster arguments that make his case. Claiming global surface temperatures have not risen in a statistically significant sense since 2001, he omits to mention that NASA ranks 2005 the warmest year in over a century, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently reported that "Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850).”

                                                      Plus, in seeking a trend over just six years, Monckton has tumbled into his own trap of lacking statistical significance. The warming trend is clearly upwards, and the latest data suggests the rise is faster than previously estimated.

                                                      Monckton also refers to apparent anomalies in temperatures recorded in the tropical upper troposphere, and states that from these we now know that the relatively minor warming that ceased (sic) in 2001 was largely not caused by greenhouse gas emissions. Here, he ignores the large errors in upper troposphere temperature measurements. And – as so often with global warming "sceptics" – he ignores the mountain of scientific publications that show global warming resulting from greenhouse gas emissions is real and significant, and cherry picks from the molehill of science that suggests otherwise.

                                                      In concluding that no imposts should be inflicted upon us unless we are told how much they will cost and how much effect they will have, Monckton reveals his narrow knowledge of global warming. The IPCC has forecast that measures to mitigate the worst impacts of global warming could slow global GDP growth by an average of 0.12 percentage points. The Post was correct to write of a “planetary emergency”.

                                                      We are all effectively locked in a test tube, in surely the greatest experiment man has ever performed. If the worst projections come true, this will mean the transformation of life as we know it: a dire, apparently sci-fi scenario, yet a succession of news reports tell us of warming-related events that are unfolding at a startling pace. This is not a time for debating and waiting and seeing, but for action.

                                                      Yours faithfully, Dr Martin Williams

                                                      More on Monckton being untrustworthy, in a letter from the Clerk of Parliament no less, reproduced on Climate Shifts; includes:

                                                      My predecessor, Sir Michael Pownall, wrote to you on 21 July 2010, and again on 30 July 2010, asking that you cease claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication. It has been drawn to my attention that you continue to make such claims.

                                                      In particular, I have listened to your recent interview with Mr Adam Spencer on Australian radio. In response to the direct question, whether or not you were a Member of the House of Lords, you said “Yes, but without the right to sit or vote”. You later repeated, “I am a Member of the House”.

                                                      I must repeat my predecessor’s statement that you are not and have never been a Member of the House of Lords.

                                                      Monckton. Member of the House of Lords?


                                                        An especially crass piece on some US website, Town Hall – by a guy who has no science background, but was lately "a litigator in high profile entertainment matters" – gets it completly wrong re warming, figuring the issue’s only about politics [it’s real if your a leftie: bizarre notion to me]. Not just hysteria, but paranoia as well; and profound, worrying ignorance about the world we live in – where actions do have consequences that can’t b willed away just because you wish the world was a certain way. Includes:

                                                        The Democrats (a.k.a. global warming wimps) have found the rhetorical weapon they will use for at least the next decade to decrease your liberty while increasing their power, and that weapon is the hysteria over global warming. … Environmental doomsaying is one of the most powerful tactics that liberals use to obtain and wield power. At its heart, the Democrat Party is a coalition of interest groups that feed at the trough of the government. The more power the politicians and bureaucrats have, the more contracts and benefits the groups can gobble up. … Everything you do has a carbon footprint and could be regulated by the government. If the Democrats have their way, you could face new limits on what you eat for breakfast, the way you travel to work, the computer on which you read Townhall.com, the medicines you take, the clothes you wear, the DVDs you watch, everything – everything! “Carbon footprint” is code for limitless government intrusion into every detail of your life.

                                                        Global Warming: The All-Purpose Farce to Control Your Life


                                                          It seems there’s some sort of contest among US right wingers to see who can stoop the lowest in writing the crassest hyperbole regarding global warming. CBS should be ashamed of hosting an opinion piece I’ve come across. Includes:

                                                          creating stampedes and hysteria has become a major activity of those hyping a global-warming “crisis.” They mobilize like-minded people from a variety of occupations, call them all “scientists” and then claim that “all” the experts agree on a global-warming crisis. … Those who bother to check the facts often find that not all those who are called scientists are really scientists and not all of those who are scientists are specialists in climate. But who bothers to check facts these days?

                                                          – latter seems deeply ironic, given the dearth of actual scientists saying global warming isn’t an issue, and the paucity of facts supporting their case.

                                                          The party line of those who say that we are heading for a global warming crisis of epic proportions is that human activities generating carbon dioxide are key factors responsible for the warming that has taken place in recent times. The problem with this reasoning is that the temperatures rose first and then the carbon dioxide levels rose. Some scientists say that the warming created the increased carbon dioxide, rather than vice versa.

                                                          – this shows that the buffoon penning the piece has no notion re facts; CO2 levels have been rising for some time, greenhouse effect (warming) was predicted before temperatures shown to be rising. Cold Water on "Global Warming" National Review Online: Skeptics To Gather In Gotham To Discuss The Cold, Hard Facts


                                                          From an article in the New Statesman:

                                                          The last time I looked, four out of five of Amazon’s top sellers on climate were penned by deniers. And these are not just views from the fringe. A MORI poll reported by the Observer last month found six out of ten people think, wrongly, that "many scientific experts" disagree on whether human beings are causing climate change. Four out of ten people asked believed that the impact had been exaggerated.

                                                          Many climate-change sceptics like to think they are proudly independent people, refusing to be cowed by UN-sponsored orthodoxy from the IPCC. In fact, the arguments of climate sceptics have largely been moulded by a far more sinister force – the US-based conservative think tanks. A recent academic survey of environmentally sceptical books found that 92 per cent were linked with these think tanks, which include the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Since the early 1990s, these and other industry-funded front groups have been leading an anti-environmental backlash, changing the tenor of the political debate on environmental issues and bombarding the media and the public with disinformation.

                                                          The authors of the study, published in the June edition of a journal called Environmental Politics, argue that, far from being a true grass-roots movement, "environmental scepticism is an elite- driven reaction to global environmentalism, organised by core actors within the conservative movement". The "self-portrayal of sceptics as marginalised ‘Davids’ battling the powerful ‘Goliath’ of environmentalists and environmental scientists is a charade", given that the "sceptics are supported by politically powerful conservative think tanks funded by wealthy foundations and corporations".

                                                          The global warming deniers



                                                          Though science regarding climate change continues strengthening, still get cocksure scurrilous denialist twaddle, including recent article headed "2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved" in the Daily Telegraph, by columnist and resolute non-scientist Christopher Booker.

                                                          This includes assertion:

                                                          Easily one of the most important stories of 2008 has been all the evidence suggesting that this may be looked back on as the year when there was a turning point in the great worldwide panic over man-made global warming.

                                                          – when the evidence of the article itself suggests Booker lives in a fantasy land, barely penetrated by reality.

                                                          For rebuttal of Booker’s article, you might see Tim Lambert’s Deltoid blog entry, Denialists scraping the bottom of the barrel

                                                          For more on Booker and his propensity to peddle twaddle, see:

                                                          The Bias and Logical Fallacies of Christopher Booker’s ‘Freezing Heat’ by Gavin Hudson, on an earlier Booker opinion piece; includes:

                                                          the credibility of Mr. Booker’s article as a rational piece of scientific journalism falls apart as early as the first paragraph under the weight of his personal bias. Moreover, the writing is so riddled with logical fallacies that the article actually does an injustice to the “climate skeptics” whose arguments it seeks to support.

                                                          Also, George Monbiot clearly no fan of Booker; in The Patron Saint of Charlatans he writes:

                                                          what can you say about a man who makes the same mistake 38 times? Who, when confronted by a mountain of evidence demonstrating that his informant is a charlatan convicted under the Trade Descriptions Act, continues to repeat his claims? Who elevates the untested claims of bloggers above peer-reviewed papers? Who sticks to his path through a blizzard of facts? What should we deduce about the Sunday Telegraph’s columnist Christopher Booker?

                                                          Nine days ago, for example, he attacked Michael Mann … How did Booker trip up so badly? By using the claims of unqualified bloggers to refute peer-reviewed studies.

                                                          for the Wikipedia Professor of Gibberish, this patron saint of charlatans, even the seasons are negotiable. Booker remains right, whatever the evidence says. It is hard to think of any journalist – Melanie Phillips included – who has spread more misinformation.


                                                          I’d read lately of global warming deniers becoming ever more desperate as scientific evidence for anthropogenic global warming continues to mount.

                                                          But who’d have thought that US right-wingers, who spearhead much of denialism, would actually cite Pravda as a source of info, as they attempt to rebut global warming science.

                                                          This would seem more like something off Saturday Night Live than reality, but just happened on Newsbonkers … err, Newsbusters:

                                                          As Democrats and their president-elect — with invaluable assistance from their media minions — continue spreading climate hysteria in order to raise taxes and redistribute wealth, a possibly inconvenient truth has just been presented to the international community: "The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science」。

                                                          Additionally, the entire bogus manmade global warming theory that climate alarmists and their surrogates have been forcing down the throats of the citizenry "is based on data that is drawn from a ridiculously narrow span of time and it demonstrates a wanton disregard for the ‘big picture’ of long-term climate change」。 

                                                          Such was reported by Russia’s Pravda Sunday

                                                          Global Warming Update: ‘Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age’


                                                        正在檢視 30 篇文章 - 1 至 30 (共計 50 篇)
                                                        • 抱緊,回歸主題必須先登錄。