討論回复已建立
- 文章
So OK, the OISM has adopted pooh-poohing warming as a cause, after starting w some highly dodgy right wing US Christian views – note the sourcewatch article re books saying nuclear bombs not so bad really, and flogging material like old edition of Encyclopedia Brittanica for serious money.
Might be allied to kinds of people who build museums w dinosaurs pulling carts and so forth. See, eg, re idiocy and “gut” views over science etc: 來自白痴美國的問候.Anyways, there is no scientific debate re validity of global warming; just as no scientific debate re earth being round, earth going round sun, evolution, plate tectonics, gravity…
Any such “debate” – in absence of alternative theory that stands up to scrutiny, explains observations (and my “dr” is for phys chem, real hard science, so I have some notions re theories) – is bogus and diversionary.
It would be nice to think global warming’s just a matter of opinion; nice to continue with illusion this is just a “debate”, which is really somewhat trivial, or that reality can change depending on your political or religious viewpoint.
Sadly, that’s not the case.Evidence is strong and building that warming is an issue. For instance:
引用：a new analysis in Nature that paints a dark portrait of what a warming world will look like in the years to come.The researchers assessed 829 geologic phenomena—including melting glaciers—along with nearly 30,000 changes in plants and animals (from bird migration patterns to plummeting penguin populations), and found that about 90 percent of them are in sync with scientists’ predictions about how global warming will alter the planet.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=man-made-warming-altering-natures-clock
There is, however, plenty of scope for debate re what we do about warming.
Big Fat Nothing seems the general consensus, despite some fine words.We can fight terrorists real and imaginary and so forth, respond – when allowed to – to disasters as they happen; yet here we are, overwhelmed by this issue. And in too many cases, just in denial, heads thrust firmly in sand, sometimes clinging too tightly to keys to the SUV.
Oh dear, I see Earth has a cold has a prominent link to guff re the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.
:S
nuff said, I think.
引用：賓州州立大學生物學副教授埃里克·波斯特表示，由於氣候變暖，西格陵蘭島的馴鹿幼崽數量減少，死亡數量增加。波斯特認為，馴鹿可能是包括全球暖化在內的氣候變遷的指標物種，他的結論是基於數據顯示，食物供應高峰的時間不再與馴鹿的出生時間相對應。
…
馴鹿無法跟上因全球暖化而發生的某些變化。當動物到達產卵地時，懷孕的雌性發現它們賴以生存的植物已經達到了最高生產力，營養價值已經開始下降。根據波斯特介紹，這些植物是根據溫度而不是白天的長度來開始生長的，隨著溫度的升高，它們的峰值時間大大提前。波斯特說：“過去幾年，我們西格陵蘭研究地點的春季氣溫上升了 4 攝氏度以上。” “結果，植物生長的時間提前了，但產犢的時間卻沒有。”Sent Now TV another stroppy missive re their crappy “live” cricket channel, where it seems live tv has vanished lately.
Had reply, inc this schedule for forthcoming matches that will be shown.引用：England v New Zealand Test
(3 Tests, 1 Twenty20 and 5 One-Day Internationals)May 2008
ICC Asia Cup
June 2008
England v South Africa Test
(4 Tests, 1 Twenty20 and 5 One-Day Internationals)July – September 2008
Australia v Bangladesh
(2 Tests, and 3 One-Day Internationals)August – September 2008
ICC Champion’s trophy
Sept 2008
Australia v New Zealand
(2 Test, 5 One-Day Internationals, 1 Twenty20)November 2008
Australia v South Africa
(3 Tests, 5 One-Day Internationals)December 2008 – January 2009
ICC World Cup Qualifier
April 2009
England v Zimbabwe
(2 Tests, 3 One-Day Internationals)May – June 2009
Twenty20 World Cup
May 2009
Emailed back, saying:
Well, this looks better.But still hardly inspired.
I’m interested in the England – NZ/S Africa matches over the summer. Not too excited by schedule for coming winter.Seems there are no cricket fans working at the channel.
引用：氣候研究人員週四表示，透過向地球平流層噴灑硫酸鹽顆粒來扭轉全球暖化影響的建議解決方案可能會使情況變得更糟。他們表示，試圖透過製造一種人造遮陽板來為地球降溫，將使南極臭氧空洞的恢復延遲30至70年，並使北極上空的地球保護臭氧層再次喪失。
科羅拉多州博爾德國家大氣研究中心的西蒙娜·蒂爾姆斯(Simone Tilmes) 表示：“我們的研究表明，如果實際上向大氣中排放大量硫，我們的臭氧消耗會比以前更大。”她的研究發表在該雜誌上科學。
來自彭博社的一篇文章：
引用：保育組織世界自然基金會表示，全球暖化對北極的影響比科學家預期的更嚴重、更快，導致寒冷地區的冰層、野生動物、大氣和海洋發生不可預見的變化。環境運動組織（在美國被稱為世界野生動物基金會）表示，過去三年觀察到的最顯著差異包括夏季海冰「大幅加速」下降和格陵蘭冰蓋「大幅」萎縮。今天有一份123 頁的報告。
科羅拉多州博爾德國家冰雪數據中心首席科學家特德·斯坎博斯在電話中表示：“我們看到氣溫變暖速度更快。”他說，最好的解釋是「溫室氣體引發的」。斯坎博斯並沒有參與世界自然基金會的報告。
那麼，您認為《魔鬼終結者》的未來看起來很嚴峻嗎？
來自《每日電訊報》的報導：引用：一家領先的國防智庫警告說，氣候變遷可能導致像兩次世界大戰一樣規模的全球衝突，如果不加以控制，這種衝突將持續數個世紀。皇家聯合軍種研究所表示，如果世界要避免氣溫變化帶來的最嚴重影響，就需要將研究支出增加十倍，相當於阿波羅太空計畫的支出。
…
報告稱：“如果氣候變遷不減緩並且超過關鍵的環境閾值，那麼它將成為國家之間和國家內部衝突的主要驅動因素。”它補充說：「氣候影響將迫使我們徹底重新思考如何識別和保護我們的國家利益。例如，我們的能源和氣候安全將越來越依賴與中國等其他能源消費大國建立更強有力的聯盟，以開發和部署新能源技術，而不是依賴與石油生產國的關係。
“除非當地生計能夠經受住氣候變遷對水資源供應和農作物產量的影響，否則阿富汗長期和平與穩定的任何戰略都不可能成功。”
就在布希總統任期的末期，布希終於宣布了諸如重新暖化計畫之類的計畫。但不幸的是：
引用：布希總統呼籲在 2025 年停止美國溫室氣體排放的成長，但對如何實現這一目標幾乎沒有提出任何想法，因此受到了環保組織的批評。這項關於全球暖化的提案未達到歐洲提案的要求，是在美國國會準備考慮更雄心勃勃的計劃之際、在巴黎舉行國際氣候變遷談判之前宣布的。
布希只提出了廣泛的原則，例如關注電力產業的排放，並拒絕新稅、放棄核電和貿易壁壘。
來自英國廣播公司網站：
引用：根據一項新的科學分析，到本世紀末，海平面可能會上升一公尺半。這大大超過了政府間氣候變遷專門委員會（IPCC）在去年具有里程碑意義的氣候科學評估中的預測。
…
這項新分析來自英國/芬蘭的一個團隊，該團隊建立了一個電腦模型，將過去兩千年的溫度與海平面聯繫起來。「過去2000 年來，[全球平均]海平面非常穩定，僅變化約20 厘米，」英國利物浦附近的普勞德曼海洋實驗室(POL) 的斯韋特蘭娜·耶夫雷耶娃(Svetlana Jevrejeva ) 說。
「但到本世紀末，我們預計這一數字將上升 0.80 萬至 1.50 萬。
“未來幾年的快速上升與冰蓋的快速融化有關。”
Another paper out in continuing hunt for the Tooth Fairy Bird (which can survive and sustain and spread H5N1 poultry flu). Experiments showed that Mallard may be a candidate species; but other ducks, such as Tufted Duck, liable to die when infected, so maybe sentinels. I’ve just posted to aiwatch group:
引用：I’m not so up to speed re wild ducks etc n h5n1 – after all, seems to me the story is so often the same old same old; here we have more of the search for the Tooth Fairy BIrd, with suggestion it might exist (as a mallard) but not actually found. I recalled work by Webster n co – leading Tooth Fairy Bird chasers! – which involved H5N1 that was virulent to mallard. I’ve the paper someplace, but easier to google for quick info; and find: "In laboratory experiments in mallard ducks, it rapidly shifted from being potentially fatal to causing only asymptomatic infections. Nevertheless, it remained highly virulent to domestic chickens and, presumably, to people. A resilient wild waterfowl, such as the mallard, could therefore become a permanent biological reservoir for a strain of avian flu with pandemic-causing potential."I wonder, then, re the strain used in the newer TF Bird experiments: not quite the same as some strains, inc used by Webster. Once again, we have evolution to the rescue. I know virologists – many of them – don’t believe in it, instead looking to mutations and mixing, but not evolving; don’t really know why this is: too busy peering into microscopes to see wider pictures? Again: a virus getting from poultry farms to wild will evolve to low pathogenicity in wild birds (as Webster’s rather simple experiments showed – simple compared to the wild that is). I’d like to again ask: has there been anything like the effort expended in blaming wild birds used to assess the situation re official and unofficial poultry trade? – or is the situation that, with poultry trade and friends having the main money for H5N1 research, the funding tends to go into areas that can point finger of blame away from poultry industry? So far, silence re this.
You can find the paper re Mallard etc at: http://www.cdc.gov/eid/content/14/4/600.htm
來自觀察者網：
引用：世界上的冰川融化速度比有史以來的任何時候都快，這給數億人和他們的生態系統帶來了災難。世界冰川監測服務的最新報告揭露了這些細節，這將加劇人們對海平面上升以及洪水、雪崩和乾旱事件增加的日益警覺。
監測服務主任威爾弗里德·哈伯利教授表示，根據歷史記錄和其他證據，冰川融化的速度也被認為比過去 5,000 年來的任何時候都要快。 “沒有絕對的證據，但證據確鑿：這確實非同尋常。”
近三十年來，專家一直在監測世界各地的 30 座冰川，2006 年的最新數據顯示，冰的「淨損失」是有史以來最大的。聯合國環境規劃署（UNEP）負責人阿奇姆·施泰納告訴《觀察家報》，冰川融化現在是全球暖化「最響亮、最清晰」的警訊。
這個問題可能導致基礎設施故障、大規模移民甚至衝突。 「我們正在談論在你和我的一生中發生的事情。我們不是在談論一些假設的事情，我們是在談論其後果的戲劇性事情，」他說
這是另一個想法——還要注意的是，與在這個問題上四處遊蕩的政客們相比，他們在看看是否可行方面投入的努力是多麼的少。
引用：愛丁堡大學的著名工程師史蒂芬·索爾特教授制定了一項計劃，在海洋上空產生白雲，以阻止與全球暖化相關的災難性水加熱。在最壞的情況下，即達到北極冰蓋融化等全球「臨界點」時，他聲稱發射一支產雲無人機船隊可以拯救地球。
廣告索爾特因發明「鴨子」而聞名，這是一種透過波浪起伏發電的裝置，他說：「我們有一種裝有雷管的炸藥，當其中一個爆炸時，可能會引發其他炸藥。這就是為什麼我們需要有多種解決方案。我並不是說我們應該繼續燒煤然後解決後果，那將是可怕的。正如左輪手槍有很多子彈一樣，我們需要多種想法。
…
索爾特與科羅拉多州國家大氣研究中心的約翰·萊瑟姆（John Latham）合作提出了他的想法，建造船隻在海洋中航行，並產生細小的水滴，周圍形成白雲。他表示，大約需要 400 艘風力動力船，成本為 1 億英鎊。然而，困難的部分是產生足夠小的液滴以形成雲，這是索爾特尚未掌握的技術。到目前為止，他的鬥爭一直是一場孤獨的鬥爭，而且他對政府缺乏信心。索爾特說：「在英國，有一位老年退休金領取者，我和利茲的一名博士生正在研究雲端控制，僅此而已。然後還有政客週遊世界，召開會議來表達情況是多麼可怕，而唯一的結果就是他們組織另一次會議來表達同樣的觀點。
在我看來，否認全球暖化的人中有一些態度很好的人。
通用汽車公司副董事長 Bob Lutz 最近舉例說明了這些問題：引用：通用汽車公司副董事長鮑勃·盧茨(Bob Lutz)為他將全球變暖斥為“徹頭徹尾的狗屎”的言論進行了辯護，稱他的觀點與通用汽車製造環保汽車的承諾無關。通用汽車直言不諱的產品開發主管盧茨自上個月在德克薩斯州向記者發表上述言論以來一直受到網路部落客的攻擊。
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:
引用：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.
引用：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
對南極生物多樣性的進一步威脅：
引用：科學家警告說，如果全球暖化持續下去，南極洲獨特的海洋生物將面臨鯊魚、螃蟹和其他掠食者入侵的風險。英國和美國的研究小組表示，螃蟹即將返回南極淺灘，威脅巨型海蜘蛛和軟絲帶蟲等生物。
有些是在沒有捕食者的情況下進化了數千萬年的。
他們說，如果海水進一步變暖，硬骨魚和鯊魚就會遷入，威脅到物種的滅絕。
過去50年來，南極洲周圍的海面溫度上升了1至2攝氏度，是全球平均的兩倍多。
繼上述貼文之後，《國家地理》網站上又出現了這樣的新聞：
引用：新研究表明，由於全球暖化，南極附近的王企鵝可能正面臨滅絕的危險。隨著海水溫度變暖，印度洋克羅澤群島波塞申島上的大型鳥類數量正在下降，鳥類被迫長途跋涉尋找食物。
…
近年來，隨著海洋變暖，許多獵物物種已經死亡或遷移，這些動物吃的藻類也受到影響。氣溫升高也迫使魚類游到遠離島嶼的涼爽水域，導致企鵝長途跋涉捕獵。研究人員發現，離家時間越長，雛雞的採食量就越少。
因此，Le Maho 及其同事發現，在海洋暖化的年份裡，企鵝的繁殖並不順利。
在成年企鵝冬季覓食的海冰邊緣，溫度僅升高 0.47 華氏度（0.26 攝氏度），兩年後企鵝數量減少了 9%。
今年冬天在香港發現了大約六隻死蒼鷺或白鷺以及一隻死禿鷹並被證明感染了 H5N1 之後，我將以下內容發佈到了 HK Birdw Soc 論壇：
這些蒼鷺/白鷺是如何被感染的，確實很有趣。
如果不是清理鳥類屍體（之前和灰鷺一起，我就想重新清理丟進溪裡的死雞），
那麼也許是從水中來的——但為什麼個體如此之少，為什麼不是鴨子（我們知道鴨子很容易感染並傳播野生禽流感——鴨科動物顯然是這些野生流感的主要宿主）？
來自魚，胃裡有足夠的病毒？ （也許是吃了家禽糞便、受感染家禽的內臟後？）I emailed Now TV with comment rather as above; reply here:
引用：With regards to your message, we are sorry that the series of England vs
New Zealand is under our now TV coverage. Rest assured that your
valuable feedback has already been channeled back to relevant department
for further review in order to improve our service level and provide
customers with the best possible service in future.For your information, the Tri-Nation series in Australia and also the
“ICC Under-19 Cricket World cup” are available on now TV.My main int team is England; recently played series in Sri Lanka, now in New Zealand – yet none of the matches aired on the rather crappy ESPN Star Sports Cricket “Live” (haha) channel. Just turned on lest today’s 20-20 match shown – but no, was yet another repeat.
This month, get some international matches from Australia, plus bunch of domestic matches from Australia (kind of ok if nothing of higher level to show, but that’s not the case), and under 19 “world cup” (inc Papua New Guinea team).
Might be ok if a cheap channel – but get charged a premium price; premium price should merit premium content.Post I’ve just made to NY Times; responding to article on Cato Institute report along lines of Lomborg’s utterances: warming willl have bad consequences, but we’ll become so much richer that no need to do anything to stop them.
Here, inc my belief that notions v wrong; could be economic tipping point, too, closing our window of opportunity to actually do anything re warming.引用：After reading much info re warming, I’ve come to believe that if we dither re action now (not sure why the dithering – fear?), we’ll find ourselves so busy dealing with the consequences, devoting so many resources to them, that will become unable to really tackle causes of global warming.Witness, say, the tornadoes that just struck the US: can’t say for sure that a result of warming, but the kind of thing predicted, and which we’re likely to see more of. Response needed.
Increase frequency of such weather disasters – and organisations like OXfam already reporting significant increases – and could find it’s like trying to put out one fire after another, without energy/resources to tackle problems that have made many of those fires occur.
But, maybe a minority will be rich, relatively insulated; and Cao happy to pander to their ilk.
Here’s a summary of key tipping points – or “tipping elements” as they’re called here, in climate systems:
引用：Anthropogenic forcing could push the Earth’s climate system past critical thresholds, so that important components may “tip” into qualitatively different modes of operation. In the renowned magazine “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences” (PNAS) an international team of researchers describes, where small changes can have large long-term consequences on human and ecological systems.“Society may be lulled into a false sense of security by smooth projections of global change,“ the researchers around Timothy Lenton from the British University of East Anglia in Norwich and Hans Joachim Schellnhuber from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research report. Global change may appear to be a slow and gradual process on human scales. However, in some regions anthropogenic forcing on the climate system could kick start abrupt and potentially irreversible changes. For these sub-systems of the Earth system the researchers introduce the term “tipping element”.
Drawing on a workshop of 36 leading climate scientists in October 2005 at the British Embassy, Berlin, Germany, a further elicitation of 52 experts in the field, and a review of the pertinent literature, the authors compiled a short-list of nine potential tipping elements. These tipping elements are ranked as the most policy-relevant and require consideration in international climate politics.
Arctic sea-ice and the Greenland Ice Sheet are regarded as the most sensitive tipping elements with the smallest uncertainty. Scientists expect ice cover to dwindle due to global warming. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is probably less sensitive as a tipping element, but projections of its future behavior have large uncertainty. This also applies to the Amazon rainforest and Boreal forests, the El Niño phenomenon, and the West African monsoon. “These tipping elements are candidates for surprising society by exhibiting a nearby tipping point,” the authors state in the article that is published in PNAS Online Early Edition. The archetypal example of a tipping element, the Atlantic thermohaline circulation, could undergo a large abrupt transition with up to ten percent probability within this century, according to the UN climate report from 2007.
Given the scale of potentially dramatic impacts from tipping elements the researchers anticipate stronger mitigation. Concepts for adaptation that go beyond current incremental approaches are also necessary. In addition, “a rigorous study of potential tipping elements in human socio-economic systems would also be welcome,” the researchers write. Some models suggest there are tipping points to be passed for the transition to a low carbon society.
Highly sensitive tipping elements, smallest uncertainty:
Greenland Ice Sheet – Warming over the ice sheet accelerates ice loss from outlet glaciers and lowers ice altitude at the periphery, which further increases surface temperature and ablation. The exact tipping point for disintegration of the ice sheet is unknown, since current models cannot capture the observed dynamic deglaciation processes accurately. But in a worst case scenario local warming of more than three degrees Celsius could cause the ice sheet to disappear within 300 years. This would result in a rise of sea level of up to seven meters.
Arctic sea-ice – As sea-ice melts, it exposes a much darker ocean surface, which absorbs more radiation than white sea-ice so that the warming is amplified. This causes more rapid melting in summer and decreases ice formation in winter. Over the last 16 years ice cover during summer declined markedly. The critical threshold global mean warming may be between 0.5 to 2 degrees Celsius, but could already have been passed. One model shows a nonlinear transition to a potential new stable state with no arctic sea-ice during summer within a few decades.
Intermediately sensitive tipping elements, large uncertainty:
West Antarctic Ice Sheet – Recent gravity measurements suggest that the ice sheet is losing mass. Since most of the ice sheet is grounded below sea level the intrusion of ocean water could destabilize it. The tipping point could be reached with a local warming of five to eight degrees Celsius in summer. A worst case scenario shows the ice sheet could collapse within 300 years, possibly raising sea level by as much as five meters.
Boreal forest – The northern forests exhibit a complex interplay between tree physiology, permafrost and fire. A global mean warming of three to five degrees Celsius could lead to large-scale dieback of the boreal forests within 50 years. Under climate change the trees would be exposed to increasing water stress and peak summer heat and would be more vulnerable to diseases. Temperate tree species will remain excluded due to frost damage in still very cold winters.
Amazon rainforest – Global warming and deforestation will probably reduce rainfall in the region by up to 30 percent. Lengthening of the dry season, and increases in summer temperatures would make it difficult for the forest to re-establish. Models project dieback of the Amazon rainforest to occur under three to four degrees Celsius global warming within fifty years. Even land-use change alone could potentially bring forest cover to a critical threshold.
El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) – The variability of this ocean-atmosphere mode is controlled by the layering of water of different temperatures in the Pacific Ocean and the temperature gradient across the equator. During the globally three degrees Celsius warmer early Pliocene ENSO may have been suppressed in favor of persistent El Niño or La Niña conditions. In response to a warmer stabilized climate, the most realistic models simulate increased El Niño amplitude with no clear change in frequency.
Sahara/Sahel- and West African monsoon – The amount of rainfall is closely related to vegetation climate feedback and sea surface temperatures of the Atlantic Ocean. Greenhouse gas forcing is expected to increase Sahel rainfall. But a global mean warming of three to five degrees Celsius could cause a collapse of the West African monsoon. This could lead either to drying of the Sahel or to wetting due to increased inflow from the West. A third scenario shows a possible doubling of anomalously dry years by the end of the century.
Indian summer monsoon – The monsoon circulation is driven by a land-to-ocean pressure gradient. Greenhouse warming tends to strengthen the monsoon since warmer air can carry more water. Air pollution and land-use that increases the reflection of sunlight tend to weaken it. The Indian summer monsoon could become erratic and in the worst case start to chaotically change between an active and a weak phase within a few years.
Lowly sensitive tipping elements, intermediate uncertainty:
Atlantic thermohaline circulation – The circulation of sea currents in the Atlantic Ocean is driven by seawater that flows to the North Atlantic, cools and sinks at high latitudes. If the inflow of freshwater increases, e.g. from rivers or melting glaciers, or the seawater is warmed, its density would decrease. A global mean warming of three to five degrees Celsius could push the element past the tipping point so that deep water formation stops. Under these conditions the North Atlantic current would be disrupted, sea level in the North Atlantic region would rise and the tropical rain belt would be shifted.
引用：World demand for oil and gas will outstrip supply within seven years, according to Royal Dutch Shell. The oil multinational is predicting that conventional supplies will not keep pace with soaring population growth and the rapid pace of economic development. Jeroen van der Veer, Shell’s chief executive, said in an e-mail to the company’s staff this week that output of conventional oil and gas was close to peaking. He wrote: “Shell estimates that after 2015 supplies of easy-to-access oil and gas will no longer keep up with demand.” The boss of the world’s second-largest oil company forecast that, regardless of government policy initiatives and investment in renewables, the world would need more nuclear power and unconventional fossil fuels, such as oil sands. “Using more energy inevitably means emitting more CO2 at a time when climate change has become a critical global issue,” he wrote.在首席獸醫約瑟夫·多梅內克如此輕易地指責野生鳥類傳播 H5N1 後，糧農組織的情況發生了很大轉變：
引用：一位動物疾病專家週三表示，沒有確鑿的證據表明野生鳥類是 H5N1 病毒從亞洲明顯傳播到歐洲、非洲和中東部分地區的罪魁禍首。聯合國糧食及農業組織禽流感國際野生動物協調員紐曼在曼谷舉行的禽流感會議上表示，也沒有證據顯示野生鳥類是 H5N1 病毒的宿主。
…
「我們知道，一些野生鳥類可能攜帶病毒短距離移動，然後死亡，但我們無法識別 H5N1 跨越大範圍空間距離的攜帶情況，然後導致傳播到其他鳥類並導致家禽群死亡。」紐曼告訴路透社。他說，迄今為止，對全球約 35 萬隻健康鳥類進行的糞便檢測只得出了「少數」H5N1 陽性結果。
此外，在發現野生鳥類感染該疾病的實例和地點，家禽中沒有同時爆發該病毒。
紐曼說：“因此，我們目前還沒有 H5N1 的野生動物宿主……因此它們不可能成為該疾病的主要傳播者。”
他強調需要專注於家禽貿易，特別是走私，並補充說這些因素可能反而會傳播和維持這種致命疾病。
牛津研究小組的報告預測，氣候變遷問題可能包括嚴重的安全後果（內亂、族群間暴力和國際不穩定）。五、簡要總結：
引用：氣候變遷將對已開發國家和發展中國家都產生嚴重的環境、社會經濟和安全後果。本報告探討了這些後果，並表明它們將為試圖維持國內穩定的政府帶來新的挑戰。I’ve seen that numbers of west Pacific typhoons may decrease with global warming – as wind shear increases, so it’s harder for them to form. Now, first news I’ve noticed that maybe this will be true for Atlantic – albeit contentious. Must still wonder if warmer seas will lead to more strong storms (ie, powerful trop cyclones) – ie once they start forming, tend to become powerful, maybe fast.
引用：Global warming could reduce how many hurricanes hit the United States, according to a new federal study that clashes with other research. The new study is the latest in a contentious scientific debate over how man-made global warming may affect the intensity and number of hurricanes. In it, researchers link warming waters, especially in the Indian and Pacific oceans, to increased vertical wind shear in the Atlantic Ocean near the United States. Wind shear — a change in wind speed or direction — makes it hard for hurricanes to form, strengthen and stay alive. So that means "global warming may decrease the likelihood of hurricanes making landfall in the United States," according to researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Miami Lab and the University of Miami. … Critics say Wang’s study is based on poor data that was rejected by scientists on the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They said that at times only one in 10 North Atlantic hurricanes hit the U.S. coast and the data reflect only a small percentage of storms around the globe.Study: Warming May Cut US Hurricane Hits
這讓人回想起上面的帖子，樂施會稱與天氣有關的災害數量增加。
引用：國際紅十字會週一表示，將重新調整來年的預算和援助呼籲，以便更好地應對氣候變遷和相關自然災害日益嚴重的威脅。
…
紅十字與紅新月聯會秘書長馬爾庫·尼斯卡拉表示，與天氣有關的自然災害，如乾旱和洪水，從過去十年平均每年200起增加到過去兩年每年約400起。「氣候變遷也對供水、糧食生產甚至健康危機產生了非常真實且非常令人擔憂的影響，」他說。
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:
引用：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.我看到有關南極冰層增加的說法，據說這表明全球暖化並不是真正的問題。與本研究相矛盾。
引用：根據新的衛星測量結果，今天南極洲西部地區的冰脫落速度比十年前快得多。該研究的合著者、英國布里斯託大學的喬納森·班伯（Jonathan Bamber）表示，這些測量幾乎對整個大陸的海岸進行了調查，結果表明氣候模型低估了南極洲對持續的全球變暖的反應速度。
…他們發現，整個南極洲的冰損失在十年間增加了約 75%，從 1996 年的每年 112 億噸冰增加到 2006 年的每年 196 億噸冰。
至於隨著全球暖化的進行，南極洲是否會失去或增加冰，測量結果與現有的氣候模型不一致，現有的氣候模型顯示「由於氣溫變暖，降雪量增加，[冰蓋]將會變得更大，」班伯說。
“我們不這麼認為。我們看到冰蓋正在失去質量，」他說。 “因此，冰蓋最近所做的事情以及未來可能發生的事情發生了一些範式轉變。”
科學家擔心融化的冰將導致危險的海平面上升。
…
班伯表示，冰損失增加的「最可能的解釋」是，變暖的海水正在融化接地點的冰。
…北極熊國際網站提供了很好的信息，反駁了有關北極熊數量正在增加的說法，因此不必擔心全球暖化。
引用：德羅徹博士是加拿大埃德蒙頓大學的北極熊科學家。他也是 PBI 科學顧問委員會的成員。
…
各種帶有偏見的報導忽略或忽略了人口變化的不同原因。如果我認為現在的熊數量比 50 年前更多，並且有合理的基礎假設這種情況不會改變，那麼就不用擔心。不是這種情況。這裡的底線是，這是一個蘋果和橘子的問題。對北極熊數量的早期估計只是一種猜測。根本沒有 1950-60 年代的數據。除了猜什麼都沒有。我們確信人口受到過度收穫的負面影響（例如，飛機狩獵、船隻狩獵、自殺槍、陷阱和無收穫限制）。收穫量巨大並且還在持續成長中。由此產生的熊數量較少只是由於收穫過多，但同樣，這只是對熊數量的猜測。
1970年代簽署《國際北極熊協定》後，北極熊的收成受到控制，數量增加。
…
然而，基於定量研究，有非常有力的證據表明西哈德遜灣和南波弗特海的面積下降。最近，在哈德遜灣南部工作的科學家報告說，北極熊的狀況大幅下降。狀況惡化是西哈德遜灣人口減少的先兆。有明顯跡象顯示巴芬灣、凱恩盆地和挪威灣的過度捕撈導致族群數量下降。
…
看看那些使者：大企業的遊說團體說沒有問題。
…
將收穫控制恢復後的收穫導致的下降與棲息地喪失和氣候變暖導致的下降進行比較的是蘋果和橙子。無知的人寫出無知的東西。Here's another letter I've sent the South China Morning Post, responding to letter from Viscount Monckton.
引用：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:
引用：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.
