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?
Friday, April 11, 2014
CFACT 不一樣的非政府組織 不一樣的氣候變化觀點
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 ）
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
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
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)