Lying about climate change to advance the environmental agenda is a good idea, say two economists in a peer-reviewed paper published in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics.
4/04/2014
http://goo.gl/W8Bgg6
The authors, Assistant Professors of Economics Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao, take it as a given that both the media and the science establishment routinely exaggerate the problem of climate change. But unlike the majority of their colleagues in academe - who primly deny that any such problem exists - they go one step further by actively endorsing dishonesty as a way of forcing through (apparently) desirable public policy.
Is Lying About Climate Change Okay?
4/08/2014
http://goo.gl/6eaKoJ
Climate Craziness of the Week: Peer reviewed paper says it’s OK to manipulate data, exaggerate climate claims
4/04/2014 by Anthony Watts
http://goo.gl/jlpiIS
Peer reviewed paper: It’s OK to lie about climate
4/04/2014
http://goo.gl/8RYwTp
You won’t find it shocking to learn that suppressing inconvenient facts, lying about climate science and exaggerating tales about natural weather are deliberate strategies for global warming campaigners.
What will shock you is that two professors not only candidly admit it, but published a paper in a peer reviewed journal touting the beneficial effects of lying for pushing nations into a UN climate treaty in Paris next year!
The title of their study?
“Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements.”
Shock peer-reviewed paper provides ‘rationale’ for ‘information manipulation’ & ‘exaggeration’ in global warming debate to ‘enhance global welfare’
4/04/2014
New Paper: It’s OK to lie about climate?! - Published in American Journal of Agricultural Economics
http://goo.gl/IYmeSM
Al Gore Makes ‘Extreme’ Claims About Global Warming And Weather
4/26/2014
http://goo.gl/IwQqOP
Alaskan Polar Bears Threatened…By Too Much Spring Ice
April 25, 2014
http://goo.gl/ZXAhuw
Five meters of ice– about 16 feet thick - is threatening the survival of polar bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea region along Alaska’s Arctic coast, according to Dr. Susan J. Crockford, an evolutionary biologist in British Columbia who has studied polar bears for most of her 35-year career.
Tragic Earth Day News For Green Propagandists: More Americans Believe In God Than Man-Made Global Warming
4/22/2014
http://goo.gl/qjqit5
The schools, the universities, the government, the green NGOs, Hollywood and the MSM have invested billions of man hours and dollars trying to persuade them that climate change is the greatest threat of our age.
But according to this survey, only 33 per cent are buying it - while another 37 per cent remain thoroughly unconvinced.
No One Cares How Many Predictions Earth Day Founders Got Wrong
4/22/2014
http://goo.gl/kejYBD
100% Of The US Warming Trend Since 1930 Is Due To Data Tampering
4/09/2014
http://goo.gl/gAqWXY
Human Caused Global Warming: The Biggest Deception in History
Published on Nov 13, 2013
Presentation by Dr. Tim Ball
http://youtu.be/tPzpPXuASY8
The Big Green Lie Exposed. The belief in man made global warming has become the defining cause of this century. Whole nations adopt measures to decarbonize their economies, and school children are taught to conceptualize mankind as a polluting virus. Is this cultural phenomena really based on scientific premises?
Dr. Ball is one of the few scientists who have not buckled under the pressure of the Malthusian lobby, and first became internationally known for his role in the 2007 BBC documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle.
Absolute Certainty Is Not Scientific
Global warming alarmists betray their cause when they declare that it is irresponsible to question them.
By DANIEL B. BOTKIN
December 2, 2011
http://goo.gl/wx9WZR
For all you idiots that think climate skeptics are lavishly funded by ‘Big Oil’, read this
1/03/2014
http://goo.gl/WyGhkS
Claim: Dark Money Conspiracy – star “deniers” are scripted performers
12/23/2013
http://goo.gl/wkbhgN
The BIG LIE: Sceptics Funded by Big Oil -no, the Alarmists are.
7/24/2013
http://goo.gl/pcJ4gR
Are Skeptical Scientists funded by ExxonMobil?
5/10/2011
http://goo.gl/lqvbnH
哥本哈根毫無意義 CFACT稱氣候變暖是"人造"的
2009-12-22
新民周刊
專家認為，哥本哈根會議存在諸多缺陷，對全球而言，一場失敗的大會可能會更好。
撰稿·邵樂韻(記者)
第二周的哥本哈根氣候變化大會進入核心討論階段，而前半程的會議已像坐雲霄飛車般刺激了。
一會是IPCC“氣候門”事件使得研究結論可信度遭到質疑；一會又出現了“草案戰爭”——先是東道主丹麥牽頭英美等發達國家擬定的“丹麥草案” “劫貧濟富” 引起群情激憤，接著，由中國、印度、南非和巴西組成的“基礎四國”在11月下旬秘密討論的“北京文本”針鋒相對地曝光；好不容易，12日出台了首份官方文 本“主席草案”——《公約》長期合作行動計劃和《京都議定書》最新修正案，卻因為控溫減排目標仍不確定，被形容為一個像選擇題，一個像填空題，留待後面的 部長級談判作決定。
可是，最擺不平的，就是“公平”二字。越是到後階段，各方分歧越是明顯。14日，由於肯尼亞、尼日利亞、埃塞俄比亞等非洲國家對發達國家試圖擱置《京都議定書》第二承諾期議題的做法表示失望，聯合發起抗議活動，大會談判一度被迫暫停。
哥本哈根會議到底有沒有希望得出大家都能接受的解決方案？未來到底有沒有希望創造一個讓子孫後代適宜生存的環境？
薩裡木爾·胡克：我始終保持樂觀
薩裡木爾·胡克(Saleemul Huq)從事氣候變化方面的研究有很多年了，從一開始在家鄉孟加拉做研究員，到如今擔任國際環境與發展學會(IIED)氣候變化小組的主任，兼政府間氣候變化專門委員會(IPCC)成員。
https://www.facebook.com/co2cc
他曾見識過氣候變化給世界不同地方帶來的直接威脅，如非洲的旱地、喜馬拉雅的雪山，以及亞洲低窪地區等；他也多年觀摩聯合國氣候變化峰會，卻失 望地發現一次次談判結果只是“無所作為”，談判者們出於狹隘的保護主義和經濟利益，未能對緩解氣候變化、保護後代的未來做出徹底的努力；他還同那些否認氣 候變暖的人有過口舌之戰，後者“與高污染行業有著密切聯系，但他們從未走進受氣候變化影響嚴重的村鎮和城市社區，看看那裡究竟發生了什麼。如果他們親眼一 見，就會意識到，自己(否認事實的)思想危害有多大，而那些受害地區的人卻往往不是氣候變暖的罪魁禍首”。
至於全球矚目的哥本哈根會議，胡克認為，這是一個能帶來巨大變革的“引爆點”。他在給本刊記者的郵件中寫道：“我真的相信，哥本哈根會議將來會 載入史冊，不是因為12月18日各國元首彙聚一堂，而是因為12月12日發生的事。”胡克所說的12日發生的事，即初具未來協議雛形的“主席草案”的出 台。
“這一天標志著全世界各階層的人采取了主動。不管總統、首相們在下周的‘議定書”或“公約’中選用什麼樣的措辭，其實是世界人民把這個急迫的議 題推上了案頭！那些選擇正視文案的領導人會帶領我們前進，那些選擇視而不見的人將被歷史潮流吞沒。”胡克說，全球大多數人正聯合起來應對一個嚴峻的全球挑 戰。盡管其間可能挫折重重 (例如會議最終的協議可能缺乏力度)，但變革趨勢已經勢不可擋。
“不管下周我們能取得何種成果——本周政治角力不斷，我依舊保持樂觀——我們將走上一條嶄新的、無可阻擋的道路。”胡克很欣賞那些帶頭積極應對氣候變化的國家領導人，其中一些往往來自意想不到的地方，例如小國馬爾代夫的總統穆罕默德·納希德。
再過幾個月，胡克就要回到孟加拉工作。與之前同氣候政策打交道不同，接下來他的工作重心是同氣候變化作真正的鬥爭。“我希望在未來幾年，在某個最貧窮脆弱同時充滿創新活力的地方，幫助那裡的人實現改造，把標志性的‘脆弱之地’變成舉世公認的適應力最強的地方。”
詹姆斯·漢森：哥本哈根毫無意義
詹姆斯·漢森(James Hansen)的名字在氣候領域就是和“權威”掛鉤的。這位全球頂級氣候專家、美國太空總署戈達德太空研究所主任，是20多年前最先提出全球變暖警告的科 學家之一。但是，當人們期待“哥本哈根”(Copenhagen)最終能演變為“希望之本”(Hopenhagen)時，漢森卻毫不客氣地澆下一盆冷水： 哥本哈根會議存在諸多缺陷，對全球而言，一場失敗的大會可能會更好。
漢森並不是反對應對氣候變化——他曾比喻，對待氣候變化的立場應該“像前英國首相丘吉爾反對納粹、前美國總統亞伯拉罕·林肯反對奴隸制那樣”堅 定——他所反對的，是當前的碳排放市場框架提議，“總量管制和排放交易”體制。他在接受本刊記者采訪時強調，只要仍然在這個機制下運行，只要化石燃料仍然 是最便宜的能源，“哥本哈根會議的減排目標就是自欺欺人，不會起到實際效果”，“說得再好也不一定會有好的結果”。
漢森打比方說，現在哥本哈根所討論的是“贖罪”，就像中世紀的天主教堂售賣“贖罪券”一樣：主教們通過這種方式斂財，有罪的人付了錢之後就被告 知他們依舊能升入天堂。皆大歡喜。“現在的情況正是如此。發達國家通過給發展中國家支付一點錢做‘補償’或支持，然後或多或少繼續以前的做法；而發展中國 家很高興能獲得資金，但還沒有達到他們所希望的數目。”
漢森提出，科學已經表明，繼續高排放會給年輕一代帶來什麼樣的威脅，地球物理數據也顯示，如果我們在未來20年能逐步減少煤炭燃燒引起的溫室氣 體排放，並且禁止使用從瀝青砂、油頁岩等開采出來的非傳統原油，問題還是有可能解決的——這樣，到本世紀中葉，二氧化碳排放就能減少60%。加上農林業改 善，二氧化碳濃度就能從現在的385ppm降到350ppm甚至更少。“而政府們宣稱通過‘總量管制和排放交易’機制就能實現以上目標，完全是睜眼說瞎 話。”
只要石油還是便宜的能源，全球對石油的需求就會繼續增長。由瀝青砂加工而成的石油產品的大規模的增加，已經在加拿大艾伯塔省掀起了一股石油大熱 潮，該省已經成為生產非常規石油的“沙特阿拉伯”。這無疑讓漢森皺眉。“總量管制和排放交易只是滿足了特殊利益的需求。必須抬高排碳價格，讓市場從能源有 效性角度來做決定，讓高污染的石油燃料永遠埋在地下。再生能源和核能是未來清潔能源的代表。”
68歲的漢森極其在意後代會生活在怎樣一個環境裡。就在哥本哈根會議召開前，他的新書《Storms of My Grandchildren》(《孫輩的風暴》)出版了，首次全面闡述氣候變暖的真相，呼吁這是人類自我拯救的最後機會。他告訴記者：“我花了很多精力使 這本書趕在哥本哈根大會之前出版。我會繼續添加重要段落，例如證明從哥本哈根大會出台的所謂政策，事實上並沒有把我們帶上正確的道路，沒有讓我們為自己的 子孫後代保留一個美好的世界。正如我在《風暴》中所說，我們面對的是不可逆轉的引爆點。我在2005年12月就說過，如果我們不希望將來留給子孫的是一個 不可收拾的爛攤子，就必須在今後10年走上另外一條不同的軌道。”
漢森特別提到了中國的作用，“我看到的‘希望’的一個基礎是，中國政府正大力投資開發清潔能源技術(核能、可再生能源)以及節能技術等。這將為開創一個新開始提供可能。但是這需要政策的貫徹，遠遠不是哥本哈根所提出的那些政策”。
CFACT:氣候變暖是“人造”的
如果說漢森還是站在對抗全球變暖戰壕裡的人，只是在方法論上與哥本哈根會議格格不入罷了，那麼丹麥氣候意識和游說組織委員會(CFACT)則是徹底的“抬杠派”。
在哥本哈根峰會召開的同時，由科學家、商人、說客、學生組成的“反對派”也彙集丹麥首都，聲稱人類活動並沒有造成全球變暖，氣候變暖的說法完全是“人造”的。
該組織成員格雷厄姆卡珀說：“人造全球變暖是個陰謀，如此宣稱的科學家都在撒謊。一些人知道他們只是為了錢在撒謊，而另一些人則相信他們正在做拯救地球的善事。但是歸根到底他們都不是稱職的科學家。”
英國著名的反氣候變暖的意見領袖、撒切爾夫人的前顧問克裡斯多夫·蒙克頓勛爵則說：“民調顯示，兩個人中就有一人相信氣候問題是科學家們誇大出來的，這恰好是對哥本哈根峰會的拷問。”
據CFACT給記者發來的郵件，他們在12月11日召開了全天候的“國際氣候生態峰會”，要給熱火朝天的氣候變暖討論降降溫。在該組織的官方網 站上，大標題是“AllPain，NoGain”(費盡心思，徒勞無獲)——儼然是“NoPain，NoGain”(不勞無獲)的變體。
ABC science unit hides the warmist decline. Time the cleaners came in
2/12/2014
http://goo.gl/QsXkDb
Get Our ABC Back
http://goo.gl/DvsKPG
Australia would like our ABC to be non political and unbiased in its media content. The ABC is funded by the people and should be for all the people, not a percentage of the people.
Sceptics vs. Deniers: What Would a Scientist Do?
1/10/2013
http://goo.gl/dtdw5M
We reclaimed the word Skeptic — next we reclaim the word Scientist
8/12/2011
http://goo.gl/XE6VpT
David Friedman on the 97% Consensus on Global Warming | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty
2/27/2014
http://goo.gl/Ix6W4D
John Cook Is A Filthy Liar
1/27/2014
http://goo.gl/wb8ICc
Media Fail: John Cook’s Atom Bombs
June 22, 2013
http://goo.gl/VaWPxV
John Cook of (un) SkepticalScience, admits “climate change denier” is inaccurate. Will he stop name-calling?
2/19/2013
http://goo.gl/YDvwnz
‘Skeptical’ ‘Science’ gets it all wrong – yet again
12/4/2012
http://goo.gl/xzSHZA
Skeptical Science: The Censorship of Poptech
"The impact of that ban on PopTech was to silence him."
- Skeptical Science
9/12/2012
http://goo.gl/8Dn4wS
Astrophysicist debunks disinformation on Skeptical Science blog
6/19/2012
http://goo.gl/BU4WMo
Secret Skepticalscience
3/23/2012
http://goo.gl/Mg8cYx
From the Skeptical Science "leak": Interesting stuff about generating and marketing "The Consensus Project"
3/23/2012
http://goo.gl/v4k3ID
The Truth about Skeptical Science
3/18/2012
http://goo.gl/7I18Ga
John Cook: Skeptical Science
by Luboš Motl
2 April 2010 Download PDF
http://goo.gl/jwmEif
There exists no climate threat and there exists no empirically rooted evidence that the human impact on the climate deserves the attention of anyone except for a few excessively specialized experts who should investigate such speculative questions. All opinions that the climate change is dangerous, man-made, or even relevant for policymaking are based on the irrational attitude, cherry-picking, intimidation, censorship, and the general sloppiness of the kind that Mr Cook has shown us once again.
RAHN: The global-warming apocalypses that didn’t happen
The defining moment for climate change has come and gone, again
4/21/2014 By Richard Rahn
http://goo.gl/GX7K1s
The Scientific Community Is Plagued By Western Self-Loathing – The 'Treason Of The Intellectuals'
4/20/2014
http://goo.gl/2MaJFr
Shock: Huffpo Finally Admits The Existence Of Global Cooling
4/18/2014
http://goo.gl/b7kxnm
Telling ‘Noble Lies’ About Climate Change Will Backfire
Doing the right things for the wrong reasons is a serious mistake
April 18, 2014
http://goo.gl/neJ7Oa
The Great Lakes Are Still Almost Half Frozen, And It Could Affect The Environment For Years
4/17/2014
http://goo.gl/YcCwyg
Life on Earth: Principal control knob governing Earth’s temperature
April 17th, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
http://goo.gl/tjvSVK
The hilarious history of 'climate tipping points'
Thomas Lifson
April 19, 2014
http://goo.gl/MSJ1d9
Tipsy From Tipping Points
Remember how every year is a "tipping point" with global warming? The Wall Street Journal's James Taranto has put together a list of just a few of them:
8/23/2013
http://goo.gl/f2gqIC
3 reasons not to trust the new IPCC report
The latest report on climate change needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.
Donna Laframboise
15 April 2014
http://goo.gl/l5NLJI
Dying to live: Global cooling scheme increases dangerous seafood toxin that destroys kidney function
4/10/2014
http://goo.gl/LKE5hh
Understanding Global Warming Theory
4/09/2014
http://goo.gl/GIcGS1
New Climate Alarmist Tack: Go Green for God
4/07/2014
http://goo.gl/OSu4fy
Leaked IPCC climate plan to worsen global warming - ecologists
Critics say bioenergy, carbon capture, among draft report's 'false solutions' to sustain business as usual economics
4/07/2014
http://goo.gl/2xGWOJ Dr Rachel Smolker, co-director of Biofuelwatch, said that the report's embrace of "largely untested" and "very risky" technologies like bioenergy with carbon capture and sequestration (BECCS), will "exacerbate" climate change, agricultural problems, water scarcity, soil erosion and energy challenges, "rather than improving them."
'Uncertain' Science: Judith Curry's Take On Climate Change
by RICHARD HARRIS
August 22, 2013
Climate scientist Judith Curry believes that if climate scientists more readily would acknowledge the inherent uncertainties of the issue, skeptics would more likely accept the established central tenets of global warming.
Climate Scientist Professor Judith Curry says that we don't really know what the climate is doing
"But in the years since then, she's soured on the scientific consensus about climate change. "Her mantra now is, "We just don't know."". She was a warmist before
http://goo.gl/Eo0QD7
Richard Courtney: The History of the Global Warming Scare
9/12/2012
http://goo.gl/beolMu
Influences leading to UK imagined risk of global warming.
The Antarctic ‘research’ fiasco – ‘would you, could you, in a boat’?
12/31/2013 by Anthony Watts
http://goo.gl/vuo2wn
Climate mythologist Michael Mann tries to sue National Review for publishing an intelligent article
12/29/2013
http://goo.gl/1DC2dJ
Climate MOOCs: the good, the bad and the ugly
12/27/2013
http://goo.gl/NqmQXR
German Scientists Blast LA Times For Going Medieval…Compare Its Censorship To The Inquisition!
By P Gosselin on 11. Dezember 2013
http://goo.gl/l43kYF
Global warming advocates ignore quiet hurricane season of 2013; warming data is cherry-picked
12/11/2013
http://goo.gl/DV4NPI
UAH Global temperature, down slightly, “the pause” continues
12/03/2013
http://goo.gl/hfwL5H
3 out of 4 top IPCC chairs linked to fossil fuel industry
11/27/2013
http://goo.gl/R61uPP
Key climate-change measurement imperiled
Doyle Rice, USA TODAY March 19, 2014
http://goo.gl/j2T8mP
Carbon dioxide levels were around 280 "parts per million" (ppm) before the Industrial Revolution, when humans first began releasing large amounts into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. They're now near 400 ppm.
Keeling Curve Shows 2014 Setting New Records for Atmospheric CO2
By Bob Petz, March 28, 2014
http://goo.gl/Lk16UW
The Amazing Story Behind The Global Warming Scam
by John Coleman, Weather Channel Founder & Meteorologist
April 14 2014.
http://goo.gl/a5Hnbt
Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants flowed and alarming hypotheses began to show up everywhere.......Global Warming: It is a hoax. It is bad science. It is high-jacking public policy. It is the greatest scam in history.
Climatologist: Time to Revisit Falsified Science of CO2
By: Marc Morano - Climate Depot
12/28/2009
http://goo.gl/JYjMDX
We have a new climate change consensus — and it's good news everyone
Climate change is now a question of adaptation. And it's not as frightening a question as you might think
4/05/2014
http://goo.gl/PdgQnK
Nigel Lawson was right after all. Ever since the Centre for Policy Studies lecture in 2006 that launched the former chancellor on his late career as a critic of global warming policy, Lord Lawson has been stressing the need to adapt to climate change, rather than throw public money at futile attempts to prevent it. Until now, the official line has been largely to ignore adaptation and focus instead on ‘mitigation’ — the misleading term for preventing carbon dioxide emissions.
Don't Fear The Doomsday Global Warming Prophecies Of The IPCC Report
4/03/2014
http://goo.gl/bkwg8v
You've been reading all week in the MSM about the doomsday predictions in the latest IPCC report.
‘Global warming’ is rubbish says top professor
4/02/2014
http://goo.gl/vdGpf4
He doesn’t believe in ‘global warming’ and says ‘climate change’ is a meaningless term used as a sop by big business to create money. Neil hudson met prof les woodcock
Another Prominent Scientist Dissents! Fmr. NASA Scientist Dr. Les Woodcock ‘Laughs’ at Global Warming – ‘Global warming is nonsense’ Top Prof. Declares
4/03/2014
http://goo.gl/Imm375
Global warming a matter of faith, not fact
4/02/2014
http://goo.gl/Rjifc7
Back in September, even the UN's official climate change propagandists, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) could no longer ignore the fact that global temperatures had not risen for close to two decades. Despite the UN's computer models forecasting temperature gains of nearly half a degree Celsius over that time, the global average temperature had stubbornly refused to budge up or down for 18 years.
Debunking every IPCC climate prophesy of war, pestilence, famine, drought, impacts in one line
4/02/2014
http://goo.gl/8DDrsm
What's the point of analyzing all the detail from the IPCC prophesies of doom in Working Group II. Everything in the Working Group II report depends entirely on Working Group I, which is based on models we know are broken!
Climate Change: The Facts 2014
The ultimate climate book — Steyn, Delingpole, Bolt, Watts, Lindzen, Carter, and Jo Nova
4/02/2014
http://goo.gl/6WhN87
Why the IPCC Report Neglects the Benefits of Global Warming
4/01/2014
http://goo.gl/uWMWUt
IPCC's doom-and-gloom global warming apocalypse is political theater, not real science
3/31/2014
http://goo.gl/1vWuLB
Green Ideologues From UK Government Sexed Up IPCC Climate Report
3/31/2014
http://goo.gl/HSEzqa
Green ideologues working for the British government helped "sex up" the latest Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) report in order to make its conclusions sound more scary than the evidence warrants, it emerged today.
Prof Richard Tol wants his name removed from “exaggerated” IPCC report
3/27/2014
http://goo.gl/Uvqopl
UK professor refuses to put his name to ‘apocalyptic’ UN climate change survey that he claims is exaggerating the effects
Judge Orders NASA to Release Climate Change-Related Documents
11/10/2013
http://goo.gl/DwPcBK
Did JUPITER kickstart life on Earth? Gas giant may have altered climate billions of years ago
4/11/2014
http://goo.gl/SHiHKa
How Mighty Jupiter Could Have Changed Earth's Habitability
4/10/2014
http://goo.gl/MqI6db
Is Jupiter a friendly planet, Earth's enemy, or perhaps both?
花絮：不一樣的非政府組織 不一樣的氣候變化觀點
2010年04月10日
來源： 新華網
新華網德國波恩４月９日電（記者黃堃 郇公弟）新一輪聯合國氣候變化談判９日在德國波恩拉開帷幕，與以往歷次氣候變化會議一樣，會場內外都活躍著非政府組織的身影，它們形形色色的活動也顯示出不同人群對氣候變化的不同看法。
一個推崇素食主義的非政府組織舉行的活動顯得很溫馨。其成員戴上頭套扮成小雞、小牛、小羊等動物，一有人走過，他們就舉起大大的“愛我，別吃我”的宣傳板。
畜牧業是溫室氣體的一個重點排放行業。盡管“為減緩氣候變化就應該不吃肉”的觀點還有待商榷，但這些抓住氣候談判機會來宣揚素食主張的非政府組織成員卻有很好的理由：“這是每個人都能做的（應對氣候變化）簡單易行的方法，我們不需要等待各國政府的談判結果，我們自己就可以馬上行動。”
https://www.facebook.com/co2cc
這裏甚至還有對“減排溫室氣體以應對氣候變化”並不認同的非政府組織 CFACT Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow。其成員瓦爾特‧蒙克頓說，他們對氣候變化問題中自然因素和人為因素所佔比重的看法與當前主流觀點並不一致，但是仍讚同聯合國氣候變化談判中關于保護森林和環境的內容，因此也來宣傳自己的主張。
令人驚訝的是，這樣一個在氣候變化問題上“非主流”的非政府組織宣傳臺就設在氣候談判主會議廳門外，並獲得《聯合國氣候變化框架公約》秘書處的許可。這既顯示出秘書處對不同意見的大度，也從另一個側面說明聯合國協調應對氣候變化行動的不易。
（責任編輯: 安傳香 ）
How to convert me to your new religion of Global Warming in 14 easy steps
4/08/2014
http://goo.gl/X2tUnl
"We Are All Going To Die" Says Climate Scientist
4/09/2014
http://youtu.be/dcpmctTh0NQ
The game is up for climate change believers
Charles Moore reviews The Age of Global Warming by Rupert Darwall (Quartet)
4/06/2014
http://goo.gl/3r9t5r
How did the IPCC’s alarmism take everyone in for so long?
Climate scaremongers are still twisting the evidence over global warming
Dire warnings about glaciers and Amazonian rainforests are based on lobbying, not science
4/05/2014
http://goo.gl/Ry10Cm
'World Doing Just Fine; Global Warming Is Good; Co2 Is Our Friend' Say Scientists
4/04/2014
http://goo.gl/OKDnB2
The latest verdict is in on 'climate change' - and the news is good. The planet is greening, the oceans are blooming, food production is up, animals are thriving and humans are doing better than ever: and all thanks to CO2 and global warming.
The myth of ‘settled science’
2/20/2014
http://goo.gl/8zWwZX
46 statements by IPCC experts against the IPCC
BY GRUMPYDENIER
10/08/2013
46 statements by IPCC experts against the IPCC
Dr Robert Balling: “The IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.
Dr Lucka Bogataj: “Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don’t cause global temperatures to rise…. temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed.”
Dr John Christy: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report.”
Dr Rosa Compagnucci: “Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate.”
Dr Richard Courtney: “The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong.”
Dr Judith Curry: “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don’t have confidence in the process.”
Dr Robert Davis: “Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.”
Dr Willem de Lange: “In 1996 the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernible human influence on climate. I didn’t. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities.”
Dr Chris de Freitas: “Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the long-standing claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’ and predictions of computer models.”
Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: “Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.”
Dr Peter Dietze: “Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake.”
Dr John Everett: “It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios.”
Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”
Dr Lee Gerhard: “I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming concept until the furore started after NASA’s James Hansen’s wild claims in the late 1980s. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting with first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false.”
Dr Indur Goklany: “Climate change is unlikely to be the world’s most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk.”
Dr Vincent Gray: “The [IPCC] climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”
Dr Mike Hulme: “Claims such as ’2500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous … The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was only a few dozen.”
Dr Kiminori Itoh: “There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful.”
Dr Yuri Izrael: “There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate.”
Dr Steven Japar: “Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them.”
Dr Georg Kaser: “This number [of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC] is not just a little bit wrong, it is far out by any order of magnitude … It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing.”
Dr Aynsley Kellow: “I’m not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.”
Dr Madhav Khandekar: “I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence.”
Dr Hans Labohm: “The alarmist passages in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring.”
Dr Andrew Lacis: “There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department.”
Dr Chris Landsea: “I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”
Dr Richard Lindzen: “The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance.”
Dr Harry Lins: “Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated.”
Dr Philip Lloyd: “I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.”
Dr Martin Manning: “Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors.”
Dr Stephen McIntyre: “The many references in the popular media to a ‘consensus of thousands of scientists’ are both a great exaggeration and also misleading.”
Dr Patrick Michaels: “The rates of warming, on multiple time scales, have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled.”
Dr Nils-Axel Morner: “If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere.”
Dr Johannes Oerlemans: “The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine.”
Dr Roger Pielke: “All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system.”
Dr Paul Reiter: “As far as the science being ‘settled,’ I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists.”
Dr Murray Salby: “I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever someone says the science is settled. Anyone who thinks the science is settled on this topic is in fantasia.”
Dr Tom Segalstad: “The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data.”
Dr Fred Singer: “Isn’t it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even the existence of satellites — probably because the data show a slight cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction of the calculations from climate models?”
Dr Hajo Smit: “There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between human CO2 emissions and climate change.”
Dr Richard Tol: “The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices.”
Dr Tom Tripp: “There is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made.”
Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: “Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis.”
Dr David Wojick: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”
Dr Miklos Zagoni: “I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong.”
Dr Eduardo Zorita: “Editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed.”
source
http://goo.gl/oNrLOh
