1.3.1 Einführung
en Introduction
fr Introduction

• 1 de Einführung
• 2 en Introduction
• 3 fr Introduction
• 4 de Präsentationen
• 5 en Presentations
• 6 fr Présentations
• 7 Wettbewerb: Die Herausforderung

• Pensée unique fr Préparons-nous au refroidissement!
  

-

1 Einführung de

Historische Daten zum Klima und zum "Treibhauseffekt"

• Wasserplanet: Historische Daten zum Klima und zum "Treibhauseffekt"

Kontroverse: Sonnenaktivität versus CO2

1. Es wird die Hypothese vertreten, dass in der Erdatmosphäre Treibhausgase, wie Wasserdampf, Kohlenstoffdioxid, Methan und Ozon, seit Bestehen der Erde einen Treibhauseffekt bewirken, der entscheidenden Einfluss auf die Klimageschichte der Vergangenheit und das heutige Klima hat.
   Die vom Menschen verursachte Zunahme der Treibhausgase in der Atmosphäre, der so genannte anthropogene Treibhauseffekt, werde in den nächsten Jahrzehnten und Jahrhunderten eine weitere globale Erwärmung und damit einen Klimawandel bewirken.
   • ⇒ Klima-Panik: Horror-Voraussagen und Schuldzuweisung
   • ⇒ Physikalische Aspekte: Treibhauseffekt, Gegenstrahlung und Treibhausgase
2. Viele Wissenschafter sind jedoch der Ansicht, dass die Sonne für den Klimawandel verantwortlich ist.
   • ⇒ Ursachen des Klimawandels

Hans H.J. Labohm	Independent economist and publicist

de Klimakatastrophenzweifel, eine Einführung

• AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming (-Hypothese)
• Weltweit haben Zehntausende Wissenschaftler vieler verschiedener Fachrichtungen, einschliesslich 72 Nobelpreisträgern, öffentlich Zweifel an der Anthropogenic Global Warming,-Hypothese (AGW) und der ihr zugrunde liegenden Wissenschaft geäussert.
• Klimaskeptiker bezweifeln nicht den Klimawandel. Vielmehr ist Klimawandel seit Bestehen der Erde ein Normalzustand.
• Nach der AGW-Hypothese müsste in den oberen Schichten der Troposphäre und an den Polen die Erwärmung stärker sein als an der Erdoberfläche. Messungen zeigen jedoch, dass dies nicht der Fall ist. Nach der wissenschaftlichen Methode müssen Hypothesen, die mit Beobachtungen nicht übereinstimmen, verworfen und durch andere Hypothesen ersetzt werden. Vertreter der AGW-Hypothese scheinen sich an diese Regel nicht zu halten.
• Kürzlich hat der Astronom Khabibullo Abdusamatov vom Pulkovo Astronomic Observatory in St. Petersburg erklärt, die Erde werde, verursacht durch niedrige Sonnenaktivität, in der Mitte dieses Jahrhunderts eine Mini-Eiszeit erleben. Die Temperaturen werden etwa ab 2012 fallen, wenn die derzeitige globale Erwärmung, die durch relativ hohe Sonnenaktivität bedingt sei, ihren Höhepunkt erreicht habe. Die niedrigste Durchschnittstemperatur werde etwa in den Jahren 2035 bis 2045 zu vermelden sein. Diese Sicht wird auch durch den belgischen Astronomen Dirk Callebaut unterstützt, der in der Mitte des Jahrhunderts ein grosses Minimum erwartet, vergleichbar dem Maunder-Minimum (1650-1700), einer Periode, in der die Themse, die Seine und die holländischen Kanäle im Winter zugefroren waren.
• Beobachtungen zeigen, dass die CO2-Konzentration in der Atmosphäre nach einem relativ warmen Jahr weiter steigt, während die Temperaturen sinken.
• Wenn es tatsächlich eine globale Erwärmung gibt - und es wird oft von einem Temperaturanstieg von zwei Grad gesprochen -, sehen Skeptiker eher positive Folgen. Die landwirtschaftlichen Erträge könnten gesteigert und die Anbaugebiete, vor allem in der nördlichen Hemisphäre, ausgeweitet werden. Höhere CO2- Konzentrationen wirken sich wie durch die Luft übertragener Dünger aus und fördern somit das Pflanzenwachstum. Im Grossen und Ganzen, so argumentieren die Skeptiker, haben es Menschen immer geschafft, sich an unglaublich vielfältige Klimabedingungen anzupassen und erfolgreiche Lebensgemeinschaften zu bilden.
• Die Angaben, die der IPCC in seinen jüngsten Berichten über den Anstieg des Meeresspiegels macht (9 bis 88 cm in diesem Jahrhundert) werden von Skeptikern als grobe Übertreibungen gesehen. In den vergangenen Jahrhunderten stieg der Meeresspiegel um 15 bis 20 cm während eines Zeitraums von 100 Jahren an. Bisher ist es nicht zu einer Beschleunigung des Anstiegs gekommen, obwohl man dies angesichts des menschlichen Beitrags zum Treibhauseffekt hätte annehmen können.
• Häufig ist es einfacher, Mittel für Forschungen zu erhalten, die die AGW-Hypothesen stützen, als für Forschungsarbeiten, die dem Paradigma der vom Menschen verursachten globalen Erwärmung kritisch gegenüberstehen. Skeptiker sehen hierin einen Angriff auf die Unabhängigkeit und Integrität der Wissenschaft.
• Durch die Umsetzung von Kioto wird immer mehr Autorität auf Brüssel übertragen, und die europäische Wirtschaft erhält Elemente einer zentralen Planwirtschaft.
• Der vernachlässigbar kleine Netto- Reduktionseffekt von Kioto, in der zuletzt während der Klimakonferenz in Marrakesch geänderten Fassung (0,02 Grad Celsius im Jahr 2050), ist bisher in keinen offiziellen Dokumenten veröffentlicht worden.
• Die Verfechter der AGW-Hypothese behaupten oft, die Wissenschaft sei gesichert, und alle Wissenschaftler seien sich einig. Die bis hierher präsentierte Übersicht zeigt, dass dies nicht der Fall ist.
• Die Politik hat sich in den letzten 15 Jahren sehr stark engagiert, und ein Eingeständnis, dass man hier ohne solide wissenschaftliche Basis agiert und enorme Kosten bei minimalem Nutzen verursacht, wäre ein politisches Desaster, das die Klimaschutzprotagonisten auf jeden Fall verhindern wollen. Es liegt auch daran, dass die globale Erwärmung die Mutter aller Umweltängste ist. Es ist Teil einer weltlichen Religion, die für wissenschaftliche Argumente gänzlich unempfänglich ist.

• Klimaskeptiker Info
  de Hans Labohm: Klimakatastrophenzweifel - eine Einführung

• Hans Labohm über die verschiedenen Argumente und Standpunkte in der Klimadebatte
  de Klimakatastrophenzweifel eine Einführung

• Project Syndicate/Bjørn Lomborg de en fr Global Warning
  de Klimahysterie
  en Climate Hysteria
  fr Hystérie climatique

• Klimaskeptiker Info
  de Gegentheorie?

John R. Christy

He is the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He was appointed Alabama's State Climatologist in 2000. For his development of a global temperature data set from satellites he was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and the American Meteorological Society's "Special Award." In 2002. Christy was elected Fellow of the American Meteorological Society. Christy was a lead author for the 2001 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the US CCSP report Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere - Understanding and Reconciling Differences. He received his Ph.D. in Atmospheric sciences from the University of Illinois. He also has a master's degree in divinity from Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary.

• Wikipedia en: John R. Christy

de Aussagen:

• de Angesichts der derzeitigen heftigen Kontroverse über die Frage aus Satellitendaten abgeleiteter Troposphärentemperaturen geben wir an dieser Stelle im Interesse der Öffentlichkeit und mit Dr. Christys Erlaubnis die schriftliche Stellungnahme wieder, die er zu diesem Thema gegenüber dem Ressourcenausschuss des US-Repräsentantenhauses abgab.
  Die beobachteten Erwärmungsmuster, durch den Vergleich der Temperatur am Boden und in der Atmosphäre, zeigen nicht die typischen Merkmale eines Treibhauseffekts. Man kann nicht die Tatsache leugnen, der Einfluss des Menschen ist nicht entscheidend und die Zunahme des CO2 ist ein vernachlässigbarer Faktor bei der Klimaerwärmung.
  lycos.de de Stellungnahme von Dr. John Christy vom 13. Mai 2003 gegenüber dem Ressourcenausschuss des US-Repräsentantenhauses

en Statements:

• The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.
• The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) is increasing in the atmosphere due primarily to the combustion of fossil fuels. Fortunately (because we produce so much of it) CO2 is not a pollutant.
  As an aside, it is clear that other emissions may be called pollutants, e.g. sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides and mercury. Controlling these is a completely separate issue from controlling emissions of CO2 and so will not be discussed here.
  The conclusion in IPCC 2001 that human induced global warming was clearly evident was partly based on a depiction of the Northern Hemisphere temperature since 1000 A.D. This depiction showed little change until about 1850, then contains a sharp upward rise, suggesting that recent warming was dramatic and linked to human effects.
  Since IPCC 2001, two important papers have shown something else.
  Using a wider range of information from new sources these studies now indicate large temperature swings have been common in the past 1000 years and that temperatures warmer than today's were common in 50-year periods about 1000 years ago.
  These studies suggest that the climate we see today is not unusual at all.
  John R. Christy : U.S. House Committee on Resources, 13 May 2003
  en Written Testimony

• Ökologismus de Die Mär von der Klimaerwärmung

• OnlineZeitung 24 de Aussagen

• The Wall Street Journal
  2007-11-01 en My Nobel Moment
  

• UAH Atmospheric Science Department/John R. Christy en Homepage

• BBC News en No consensus on IPCC's level of ignorance

• science.nasa.gov en Dr. John R. Christy

• Moonbattery.com/IPCC member John Christy
  2007-11-01 en IPCC Scientist Rejects Nobel Prize, Global Warming Hoax

• Pensée unique fr John R. Christy

-

2 Introduction en

John Coleman	Founder of The Weather Channel, Chief Meteorologist of KUSI-TV in San Diego

• John Coleman
  en / de John Coleman erklärt den "Klima-Schwindel" (2009)

• KUSI News San Diego en John Coleman

The future of our civilization lies in the balance.

• It is shocking, but true, to learn that the entire Global Warming frenzy is based on the environmentalist's attack on fossil fuels, particularly gasoline. All this big time science, international meetings, thick research papers, dire threats for the future; all of it, comes down to their claim that the carbon dioxide in the exhaust from your car and in the smoke stacks from our power plants is destroying the climate of planet Earth. What an amazing fraud; what a scam.
  According to Mr. Gore the polar ice caps will collapse and melt and sea levels will rise 20 feet inundating the coastal cities making 100 million of us refugees. Vice President Gore tells us numerous Pacific islands will be totally submerged and uninhabitable. He tells us global warming will disrupt the circulation of the ocean waters, dramatically changing climates, throwing the world food supply into chaos. He tells us global warming will turn hurricanes into super storms, produce droughts, wipe out the polar bears and result in bleaching of coral reefs. He tells us tropical diseases will spread to mid latitudes and heat waves will kill tens of thousands. He preaches to us that we must change our lives and eliminate fossil fuels or face the dire consequences.
  With a preacher's zeal, Mr. Gore sets out to strike terror into us and our children and make us feel we are all complicit in the potential demise of the planet.

Here is my rebuttal

• There is no significant man made global warming. There has not been any in the past, there is none now and there is no reason to fear any in the future. The climate of Earth is changing. It has always changed. But mankind's activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the natural forces.
  Through all history, Earth has shifted between two basic climate regimes: ice ages and what paleoclimatologists call "Interglacial periods". For the past 10 thousand years the Earth has been in an interglacial period. That might well be called nature's global warming because what happens during an interglacial period is the Earth warms up, the glaciers melt and life flourishes. Clearly from our point of view, an interglacial period is greatly preferred to the deadly rigors of an ice age. Mr. Gore and his crowd would have us believe that the activities of man have overwhelmed nature during this interglacial period and are producing an unprecedented, out of control warming.
  Well, it is simply not happening. Worldwide there was a significant natural warming trend in the 1980's and 1990's as a Solar cycle peaked with lots of sunspots and solar flares. That ended in 1998 and now the Sun has gone quiet with fewer and fewer Sun spots, and the global temperatures have gone into decline. Earth has cooled for almost ten straight years. So, I ask Al Gore, where's the global warming?
  The cooling trend is so strong that recently the head of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had to acknowledge it. He speculated that nature has temporarily overwhelmed mankind's warming and it may be ten years or so before the warming returns. Oh, really. We are supposed to be in a panic about man-made global warming and the whole thing takes a ten year break because of the lack of Sun spots. If this weren't so serious, it would be laughable.

I love this civilization. I want to do my part to protect it.

• If Al Gore and his global warming scare dictates the future policy of our governments, the current economic downturn could indeed become a recession, drift into a depression and our modern civilization could fall into an abyss. And it would largely be a direct result of the global warming frenzy.

• Whatts Up With That? (Antony Watts) en Weather Channel Founder Makes Another Challenge to Gore

• Whatts Up With That? (Antony Watts)
  2008-05-05 en An open letter to environmentalists

• Pensée unique fr John Coleman

Walter Cunningham	Physicist, NASA Apollo 7 Astronaut NASA's second civilian astronaut, Fighter pilot, Col. USMCR-Retired physicist, entrepreneur, venture capitalist, author of The All-American Boys, lecturer and host of Lift-off To Logic, a radio talk show.

In Science, Ignorance is not Bliss

• NASA has played a key role in one of the greatest periods of scientific progress in history. It is uniquely positioned to collect the most comprehensive data on our biosphere.
  For example, recently generated NASA data enabled scientists to finally understand the Gulf Stream warming mechanism and its effect on European weather. Such data will allow us to improve our models, resulting in better seasonal forecasts.
  NASA's Aqua satellite is showing that water vapor, the dominant greenhouse gas, works to offset the effect of carbon dioxide (CO2).
  This information, contrary to the assumption used in all the warming models, is ignored by global warming alarmists.
  Climate understanding and critical decision making require comprehensive data about our planet's land, sea, and atmosphere. Without an adequate satellite system to provide such data, policy efforts and monitoring international environmental agreements are doomed to failure. Our satellite monitoring capability is being crippled by interagency wrangling and federal budget issues. As much as a third of our satellites need replacing in the next couple of years.
  NASA should be at the forefront in the collection of scientific evidence and debunking the current hysteria over human-caused, or Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Unfortunately, it is becoming just another agency caught up in the politics of global warming, or worse, politicized science. Advocacy is replacing objective evaluation of data, while scientific data is being ignored in favor of emotions and politics.
  There are excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the Sun and the Earth's temperature, while scientists cannot find a relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption, and global temperatures. But global warming is an issue no longer being decided in the scientific arena.
  Saying the Earth is warming is to state the obvious.
  Since the end of the ice age, the Earth's temperature has increased approximately 16 degrees Fahrenheit and sea levels have risen a total of 300 feet.
  That is certain and measurable evidence of warming, but it is not evidence of AGW-human-caused warming.
  We can track the temperature of the Earth back for millennia. Knowing the temperature of the Earth, past or present, is a matter of collecting data, analyzing it, and coming up with the best answer to account for the data. Collecting such data on a global basis is a NASA forte.
  I believe in global climate change, but there is no way that humans can influence the temperature of our planet to any measurable degree with the tools currently at their disposal. Any human contribution to global temperature change is lost in the noise of terrestrial and cosmic factors.
  Our beautiful home planet has been warming and cooling for the last 4.8 billion years. Most recently, it has been warming-be it ever so slightly-but there is nothing unusual about it! The changes and rates of change in the Earth's temperature, just since the Industrial Revolution, have occurred many times in our climatic history. While climate scientists generally agree that the Earth's temperature is always changing, not many of them would say that humans are responsible for those changes.
  None of this is to say there are not legitimate reasons to restrict emissions of any number of chemicals into the atmosphere. We should just not fool ourselves into thinking we will change the temperature of the Earth by doing so.
  In a December 2007 Senate report, 400 prominent scientists signed a letter pointing out that climate change was a well-known natural phenomenon, and that adapting to it is far more sensible than attempting to prevent it. Their ranks included experts in climatology, geology, oceanography, biology, glaciology, biogeography, meteorology, economics, chemistry, mathematics, environmental sciences, engineering, physics, and paleo-climatology. Their message: When changes are gradual, man has an almost infinite ability to adapt and evolve.
  The fearmongers of global warming base their case on the correlation between CO2 and global temperature, even though we cannot be sure which is cause and which is effect. Historically, temperature increases have preceded high CO2 levels, and there have been periods when atmospheric CO2 levels were as much as 16 times what they are now, periods characterized not by warming but by glaciation. You might have to go back half a million years to match our current level of atmospheric CO2, but you only have to go back to the Medieval Warming Period, from the 10th to the 14th Century, to find an intense global warming episode, followed immediately by the drastic cooling of the Little Ice Age. Neither of these events were caused by variations in CO2 levels.
  Even though CO2 is a relatively minor constituent of "greenhouse gases," alarmists have made it the whipping boy for global warming (probably because they know how fruitless it would be to propose controlling other principal constituents, H2O, CH4, and N2O). Since human activity does contribute a tiny portion of atmospheric CO2, they blame us for global warming.
  Other inconvenient facts ignored by the activists:
  Carbon dioxide is a nonpolluting gas, essential for plant photosynthesis. Higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere produce bigger harvests.
  In spite of warnings of severe consequences from rising seas, droughts, severe weather, species extinction, and other disasters, the U.S. has not been stampeded into going along with the recommendations of the UN Panel on Climate Change-so far. Even though evidence supports the American position, we have begun to show signs of caving in to the alarmists.
  With scientific evidence going out of style, emotional arguments and anecdotal data are ruling the day. The media subjects us to one frightening image of environmental nightmare after another, linking each to global warming. Journalists and activist scientists use hurricanes, wildfires, and starving polar bears to appeal to our emotions, not to our reason. They are far more concerned with anecdotal observations, such as the frozen sea ice inside the Arctic Circle, than they are with understanding why it is happening and how frequently it has occurred in the past.
  After warnings that 2007 would be the hottest year on record and a record year for hurricanes, what we experienced was the coolest year since 2001 and, by some measures, the most benign hurricane season in the Northern Hemisphere in three decades.
  Even though recent changes in our atmosphere are all within the bounds of the Earth's natural variability, a growing number of people are willing to throw away trillions of dollars on fruitless solutions. Why do we allow emotional appeals and anecdotal data to shape our conclusions and influence our expenditures with the science and technology we have available at our fingertips?
  The situation is complex, but the sad state of scientific literacy in America today is partially to blame for belief in AGW. When a 2006 National Science Foundation survey found 25 percent of Americans not knowing the Earth revolves around the Sun, you know that science education is at a new low and society is vulnerable to the emotional appeal of AGW. And don't underestimate the role of politics and political correctness.
  The public debate should focus on the real cause of global temperature change and whether we can do anything about it. Is global warming a natural inevitability, or is it AGW-human caused?
  The conflict over AGW has deteriorated into a religious war; a war between true believers in human-caused global warming and nonbelievers; between those who accept AGW on faith and those who consider themselves more sensible and better informed. "True believers" are beyond being interested in evidence; it is impossible to reason a person out of positions they have not been reasoned into.
  It doesn't help that NASA scientist James Hansen was one of the early alarmists claiming humans caused global warming. Hansen is a political activist who spreads fear even when NASA's own data contradict him.
  Warming in the upper atmosphere should occur before any surface warming effect, but NASA's own data show that has not been happening. Global temperature readings-accurate to 0.1 degree Celsius-are gathered by orbiting satellites. Interestingly, in the 18 years those satellites have been recording global temperatures, they have actually shown a slight decrease in average temperatures.
  Hansen is currently calling for a reduction of atmospheric CO2 by 10 percent and a moratorium on coal-fired power plants, while claiming the Bush administration is censoring him. Other so-called scientists are saying the world must bring carbon emissions to near zero to keep temperatures from rising.
  In today's politically correct environment, many are reluctant to dispute the popular wisdom; when they do, they are frequently ignored.
  When NASA Administrator Michael Griffin, Hansen's boss and a distinguished scientist in his own right, attempted to draw a distinction between Hansen's personal and political views and the science conducted by his agency, he was soon forced to back off.
  It is the true believers who, when they have no facts on their side, try to silence their critics.
  When former NASA mathematician Ferenc Miskolczi pointed out that "greenhouse warming" may be mathematically impossible, NASA would not allow him to publish his work. Miskolczi dared to question the simplifying assumption in the warming model that the atmosphere is infinitely thick. He pointed out that when you use the correct thickness-about 65 miles-the greenhouse effect disappears! Ergo: no AGW. Miskolczi resigned in disgust and published his proof in the peerreviewed Hungarian journal Weather.
  For nearly a decade now, there has been no global warming. Even though atmospheric CO2 has continued to accumulate-up about 4 percent in the last 10 years-the global mean temperature has remained flat. That should raise obvious questions about CO2 being the cause of climate change.
  Instead, AGW enthusiasts are embracing more regulation, greater government spending, and higher taxes in a futile attempt to control what is beyond our control-the Earth's temperature. One of their political objectives, unstated of course, is the transfer of wealth from rich nations to poor nations or, as the social engineers put it, from the North to the South, which may be their real agenda.
  At the Bali Conference on Climate Change in December 2007, the poor nations insisted that the costs of technology to limit emissions and other impacts of climate change on their countries be paid by the rich nations. Most anticipated a windfall of money flowing into their countries to develop technology or purchase carbon credits. In this scenario, selling allotments for CO2 emissions would provide a temporary boost to their own cash flow, while severely limiting the economic development of those countries purchasing the carbon credits.
  In the face of overwhelming evidence for natural temperature variation, proponents of AGW are resorting to a precautionary argument: "We must do something just in case we are responsible, because the consequences are too terrible if we are to blame and do nothing." They hope to stampede government entities into committing huge amounts of money before their fraud is completely exposed-before science and truth save the day.
  Politicians think they can reverse global warming by stabilizing CO2 emissions with a cockamamie scheme of "cap and trade." A government entity would sell CO2 allocations to those industries producing it. The trillions of dollars in new taxes and devastation to the economy would be justified by claiming it will lower the temperature of the Earth. This rationalization is dependent on two assumptions: (1) that CO2 is responsible for the cause of changes in the Earth's temperature, and (2) a warmer Earth would be bad for humanity.
  The reality is that atmospheric CO2 has a minimal impact on greenhouse gases and world temperature. Water vapor is responsible for 95 percent of the greenhouse effect. CO2 contributes just 3.6 percent, with human activity responsible for only 3.2 percent of that.
  That is why some studies claim CO2 levels are largely irrelevant to global warming.
  Without the greenhouse effect to keep our world warm, the planet would have an average temperature of minus 18 degrees Celsius. Because we do have it, the temperature is a comfortable plus 15 degrees Celsius. Based on the seasonal and geographic distribution of any projected warming, a good case can be made that a warmer average temperature would be even more beneficial for humans.
  For a tiny fraction of the trillions of dollars a cap-and-trade system would eventually cost the United States, we could pay for development of clean coal, oil-shale recovery systems, and nuclear power, and have enough left over to pay for exploration of our solar system.
  By law, NASA cannot involve itself in politics, but it can surely champion the role of science to inform politicians. With so many uninformed and misguided politicians ignoring the available science, NASA should fill the void. NASA is synonymous with science. Allowing our priorities to drift away from hard science is tantamount to embracing decadence. NASA will surely suffer; and politicizing science is killing it.
  I do see hopeful signs that some true believers are beginning to harbor doubts about AGW. Let's hope that NASA can focus the global warming discussion back on scientific evidence before we perpetrate an economic disaster on ourselves.

• Launch Magazine Online
  2008-08-02 en In Science, Ignorance is not Bliss

• Watts Up With That? (Antony Watts
  2008-08-01 en Award-winning Astronaut Slams Hansen - Urges NASA to 'Debunk the current hysteria' over Warming

• Walter Cunningham en Homepage

William (Bill) Gray	Dr., hurricane expert, former President of the American Meteorological Association, Colorado State University

en Interview 2006-05-28

• Global warming is a hoax
• It is a planet where global warming isn't happening -- or, if it is happening, isn't happening because of human beings. Or, if it is happening because of human beings, isn't going to be a big problem. And, even if it is a big problem, we can't realistically do anything about it other than adapt.
• Now look at the ice in Antarctica: Getting thicker in places!
• Sea level rise? It's actually dropping around certain islands in the Pacific and Indian oceans.
• The models can't even predict the weather in two weeks, much less 100 years, he says.
• Gray says the recent rash of strong hurricanes is just part of a cycle. This is part of the broader skeptical message: Climate change is normal and natural. There was a Medieval Warm Period, for example, long before Exxon Mobil existed.
• The skeptics have a final trump in the argument: Climate change is actually good. Growing seasons will be longer. Plants like carbon dioxide. Trees devour it. This demonized molecule, CO2, isn't some kind of toxin or contaminant or pollutant -- it's fertilizer.
• Lewis says the snows of Kilimanjaro have been in retreat since the 1880s. The climate there is not getting warmer, it's getting drier. Just won't snow.
• The most famous anomaly, long cited by skeptics, was the satellite data. It didn't show the warming of the lower atmosphere.
• "Carbon dioxide: They call it pollution. We call it life."
• Or their kids come home from school and say, 'Daddy, why are you killing the planet?
• In 20 years, he likes to say, the world will have cooled, and everyone will know he was right all along. When that happens, he says, he hopes someone will put flowers on his grave.

• He is often called the World's Most Famous Hurricane Expert
  Washingoon Post 2006-05-28 en It shohuld be glorious to be Bill Gray

• Pensée unique fr Bill Gray

Dr. William Gray and Bill Clinton with Al Gore

• In a September, 2005, article from Discovery Magazine, Dr. William Gray, now an emeritus professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University and a former president of the American Meteorological Association, was asked if funding problems that he was experiencing and has been experiencing could be traced to his skepticism of man-made global warming. His response: "I had NOAA money for 30 years, and then when the Clinton administration came in and Gore started directing some of the environmental stuff, I was cut off. I couldn't get any money from NOAA. They turned down 13 straight proposals from me." This man is one of the most prominent hurricane experts in the world, cut off during the Clinton-Gore administration because he had been skeptical of global warming.

• Dana Rohrabacher, representing California's 46th Congressional District
  2008-05-14 en Congressman Rohrabacher's Floor Speech on Global Warming

• Whatts Up With That? (with comments)en Congressman Rohrabacher's Floor Speech on Global Warming

S. Frederic (Fred) Singer

PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia; Former director Weather Satellite Service; Founder and President of the Science & Enviromental Policy Project; Distinguished Research Professor, George Mason University. (Prof. Dr. S. Fred Singer stammt aus Wien und ist Atmosphären- und Raumfahrtphysiker und Gründer und Vorsitzender des Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP, Projekt Wissenschafts- und Umweltpolitik), einer gemeinnützigen Forschungs- und Bildungsorganisation mit Sitz in Arlington, Virginia (USA), und Professor emeritus im Fachbereich Umweltwissenschaften an der Universität Virginia.)

en Statement:

• The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals. The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth´s atmosphere. In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth´s surface and thus the climate.
  
  Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless - but very costly.

de Aussagen:

• Der Trend zur Erwärmung ist einfach ein Teil des natürlichen Zyklus der Klimaerwärmung und Wiederabkühlung, welche man in den Eisbohrkernen, in den Tiefseesedimenten und Stalagmiten sieht, und in Hunderten wissenschaftlichen Arbeiten veröffentlicht wurden. Über den Mechanismus, welcher die Klimaveränderung verursacht, wird noch diskutiert, hat aber höchstwahrscheinlich mit der Veränderung des Sonnenwindes zu tun, im Zusammenspiel mit dem Erdmagnetfeld, welches den Einfall der Kosmischenstrahlen auf die Erde beeinflusst. Diese Strahlen wiederum steuern die Wolkenbildung und beeinflussen die Menge an Sonnenlicht, welches auf die Erde fällt und somit auch das Klima verändert.
  
  Unsere Forschungen zeigen, dass die Erhöhung des CO2-Anteils in der Atmosphäre nur einen minimalen Einfluss auf die Klimaveränderung hat. Wir müssen deshalb daraus schliessen, dass alle Versuche die CO2-Emmissionen zu kontrollieren uneffektiv und sinnlos sind... aber sehr teuer werden.

fr Déclaration:

• Le réchauffement actuel fait simplement partie du cycle naturel de réchauffements et du refroidissements qui a été observé dans les carottages glaciaires, les sédiments océaniques profonds, les stalagmites etc... et dont les conclusions ont été publiées dans des centaines d'articles scientifiques soumis au contrôle par les pairs. Le mécanisme qui induit de tels changements climatiques est encore l'objet de discussions, mais il est probable qu'ils résultent majoritairement des variations du vent solaire et des champs magnétiques associés qui affectent le flux de rayons cosmiques incidents (NDLR : C'est la thèse des "solaristes", voir ici pour les détails) qui parviennent dans l'atmosphère. On pense que ces rayons cosmiques influent sur l'ennuagement et ainsi contrôlent l e flux lumineux issu du soleil qui parvient à la surface et donc, modifient le climat.

• sepp.org: S. Fred Singer, Ph.D.

de Singer wirkte als leitender Wissenschaftler im US-Verkehrsministerium (1987-89), als deputy assistant administrator for policy im US-Bundesumweltamt (1970-71) und als deputy assistant secretary für Wasserqualität und Forschung im US-Innenministerium (1967-70). Er war Gründungsdekan der School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences (Fakultät für die Wissenschaft der Umwelt und der Planeten) an der Universität von Miami (1964-67), erster Direktor des National Weather Satellite Service (der Nationale Wettersatellitendienst, 1962-64) und als Direktor des Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics (Zentrum für Physik der Atmosphäre und der Raumfahrt) an der Universität Maryland (1953-62).

In den 1980er Jahren war Singer fünf Jahre lang Stellvertretender Vorsitzender des National Advisory Committee for Oceans and Atmosphere (der Nationale Beratungsausschuß für Ozeane und Atmosphäre, NACOA). Er leitet zur Zeit das gemeinnützige Science and Environmental Policy Project, das er 1990 gegründet hat. Weitere Informationen finden Sie auf der SEPP-Webpräsenz www.sepp.org.

• Ökologismus
  2008-06-14 de Prof. Singer in Deutschland: Vorstellung des NIPCC-Berichts zum Klimawandel

• Ökologismus
  2008-03-19 de Rahmstorf contra Singer: Gedanken zum Klima der Debatte

• Wiener Zeitung
  2008-08-28 de Experte: "Die Natur, nicht der Mensch, macht Klimawandel"

• konservativ de Zwölf Thesen: Wir brauchen ein zielgerichteteres Klimaforschungsprogramm - mehr Fakten und weniger Hypothesen

About F. Singer: (Page 29)

• Heartland Institute en Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate

• Pensée unique fr S. Fred Singer

• Videos
  de Klimaforschung - Anspruch und Wirklichkeit - Prof. Fred Singer
  

John R. Christy

He is the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He was appointed Alabama's State Climatologist in 2000. For his development of a global temperature data set from satellites he was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and the American Meteorological Society's "Special Award." In 2002. Christy was elected Fellow of the American Meteorological Society. Christy was a lead author for the 2001 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the US CCSP report Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere - Understanding and Reconciling Differences. He received his Ph.D. in Atmospheric sciences from the University of Illinois. He also has a master's degree in divinity from Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary.

• Wikipedia en: John R. Christy

de Aussagen:

• de Angesichts der derzeitigen heftigen Kontroverse über die Frage aus Satellitendaten abgeleiteter Troposphärentemperaturen geben wir an dieser Stelle im Interesse der Öffentlichkeit und mit Dr. Christys Erlaubnis die schriftliche Stellungnahme wieder, die er zu diesem Thema gegenüber dem Ressourcenausschuss des US-Repräsentantenhauses abgab.
  Die beobachteten Erwärmungsmuster, durch den Vergleich der Temperatur am Boden und in der Atmosphäre, zeigen nicht die typischen Merkmale eines Treibhauseffekts. Man kann nicht die Tatsache leugnen, der Einfluss des Menschen ist nicht entscheidend und die Zunahme des CO2 ist ein vernachlässigbarer Faktor bei der Klimaerwärmung.
  lycos.de de Stellungnahme von Dr. John Christy vom 13. Mai 2003 gegenüber dem Ressourcenausschuss des US-Repräsentantenhauses

en Statements:

• The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.
• The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) is increasing in the atmosphere due primarily to the combustion of fossil fuels. Fortunately (because we produce so much of it) CO2 is not a pollutant.
  As an aside, it is clear that other emissions may be called pollutants, e.g. sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides and mercury. Controlling these is a completely separate issue from controlling emissions of CO2 and so will not be discussed here.
  The conclusion in IPCC 2001 that human induced global warming was clearly evident was partly based on a depiction of the Northern Hemisphere temperature since 1000 A.D. This depiction showed little change until about 1850, then contains a sharp upward rise, suggesting that recent warming was dramatic and linked to human effects.
  Since IPCC 2001, two important papers have shown something else.
  Using a wider range of information from new sources these studies now indicate large temperature swings have been common in the past 1000 years and that temperatures warmer than today's were common in 50-year periods about 1000 years ago.
  These studies suggest that the climate we see today is not unusual at all.
  John R. Christy : U.S. House Committee on Resources, 13 May 2003
  en Written Testimony

• Ökologismus de Die Mär von der Klimaerwärmung

• OnlineZeitung 24 de Aussagen

• The Wall Street Journal
  2007-11-01 en My Nobel Moment
  

• UAH Atmospheric Science Department/John R. Christy en Homepage

• BBC News en No consensus on IPCC's level of ignorance

• science.nasa.gov en Dr. John R. Christy

• Moonbattery.com/IPCC member John Christy
  2007-11-01 en IPCC Scientist Rejects Nobel Prize, Global Warming Hoax

• Pensée unique fr John R. Christy

• John R. Christy : U.S. House Committee on Resources, 13 May 2003
  en Written Testimony

-

3 Introduction fr

Jean Martin

fr Petite histoire du réchauffement planétaire et le débat en cours ...

Historique

• Voici l'historique résumé de cette affaire de réchauffement climatique qui fait la une des médias et mobilise les discours de nos hommes politiques qui battent leur coulpe en affirmant que l'homme en est le seul responsable...
  ... martelée jours après jours, on est arrivé au point que plus personne ne met en doute la véracité de ce qui nous est affirmé. Jusqu'à établir des bilans chiffrés de cette catastrophe écologique "si nous ne faisons rien" qui se montent jusqu'à des milliers de milliards (comme en 1970 où on prévoyait un nouvel âge glaciaire) ! (Rapport de Sir Stern, UK).
• En 1988 a été créé, avec les soutien actif des américains, le GIEC (IPCC en anglais), le Groupe Intergouvernemental d'Experts pour l'Etude du Climat.
  Initialement créé sans à priori scientifique, il évolue rapidement sous l'influence de James Hansen et recentre ses efforts sur les conséquences possibles des rejets de gaz carbonique CO2 anthropique (résultant de l'activité humaine) sur l'évolution du climat.
  Cet organisme, qui impliquait de nombreux et éminents scientifiques, tenait jusqu'en 1995 des propos très mesurés. Les choses ont évolué depuis lors.
  Les politiques ont pris le dessus. Restent, en tant que scientifiques, des experts en botanique, économie, sociologie, biologie, environnement et autres sciences s'intéressant aux conséquences d'un réchauffement climatique.
  Par contre, les climatologues de renom y sont devenus minoritaires et plusieurs d'entre eux ( Richard Lindzen, Christopher Landsea, Pielke, Christy et Reiter par exemple) en ont démissionné au motif "que le processus est motivé par des objectifs préconçus et qu'il est scientifiquement non fondé".

Le rapport du GIEC (IPCC)

• Le GIEC (IPCC) rédige périodiquement un rapport résumé destiné aux politiques. Ce rapport est intitulé "Summary for policymakers".
  Deux phrases clefs (pour les scientifiques du GIEC) ont été délibérément supprimées, au tout dernier moment, du "résumé pour les politiques" qui est sorti en 1996. ces deux phrases sont significatives d'une part de l'honnêteté et de la retenue des climatologues du GIEC (de l'époque) dans cette matière de réchauffement climatique et d'autre part de la volonté politique de quelques uns (dont le président lui-même) de dramatiser les conclusions de ce rapport.
  Voici ce deux phrases retirées du rapport final:
  
  1. Aucune des études citées dans ce rapport n'a démontré clairement que nous pouvons attribuer le changement climatique observé aux gaz à effet de serre. (NDLR : c'est à dire le CO2, le méthane etc.)
  2. A ce jour, il n'existe aucune étude prouvant que tout ou partie du changement climatique résulte des activités humaines.
  NDLR : Ces deux phrases qui relèvent de l'honnêteté des scientifiques avaient déplu à certains rédacteurs du rapport final "pour les politiques". Notons qu'à l'aube de 2007, l'effet de serre d'origine humaine n'a toujours pas été prouvé, contrairement aux affirmations répétées de nombreux hommes politiques, écologistes et autres comme Al Gore, Stern et Hulot qui vous disent que cela ne fait aucun doute... et qu'il faut consacrer des milliards à l'écologie (et aux produits dérivés)!

• Pensée unique fr Petite histoire du réchauffement planétaire

Le débat en cours

• La température au sol de notre planète se réchauffe progressivement depuis au moins un siècle. Typiquement +0,7 °C en 100 ans. Cela semble être un fait, aux erreurs de mesure près. Cela s'est déjà produit à plusieurs reprises dans l'histoire de la terre mais les tenants de l'effet de serre affirment que cela résulte, cette fois-ci, de l'effet de serre provoqué par le CO2 résultant de l'industrie humaine. Ils proposent de limiter ou d'arrêter les émissions de ce gaz à effet de serre avec les conséquences que l'on imagine.
• Les opposants à la théorie de l'effet de serre affirment que l'homme n'y est pour rien et que le réchauffement provient de causes parfaitement naturelles (dont ils donnent une explication), que des phénomènes identiques se sont déjà produit plusieurs fois au cours des millénaires passés. Ils ajoutent que limiter la production de CO2 n'aura aucune conséquence positive sur le climat mais que celle-ci peut être négative en limitant la croissance des végétaux et en nuisant à l'environnement.

Le SOLEIL

• Ne faisons pas durer le suspense. Disons le tout de suite : pour les opposants à la théorie de l'effet de serre, le grand responsable du réchauffement actuel (et aussi des réchauffements et des refroidissements passés), c'est tout simplement... le SOLEIL !
  Pour eux encore, le CO2 émis par l'homme n'a qu'une influence négligeable dans cette affaire !

La bombe H

• Tout est de la faute aux éruptions solaires que vous voyez nettement sur l'image comme des taches plus brillantes que le reste de l'astre. Vous ne pouvez évidemment les voir à l'oeil nu car cela vous brûlerait la rétine.

• 

• De fait, le soleil n'est rien d'autre qu'une gigantesque bombe atomique, une bombe H pour être précis. Une bombe H dont la taille est d'un million de fois celle de la terre et qui brûle 600 millions de tonnes d'hydrogène par seconde. C'est d'ailleurs ce que nous essayons de reproduire, à toute petite échelle, sur terre dans le projet ITER à Cadarache. Ce sera sans doute très difficile, mais c'est un enjeu extraordinaire pour le futur du genre humain. Si l'homme parvient à domestiquer l'énergie de fusion (après avoir domestiqué celle de fission), les problèmes d'énergie seront résolus pour longtemps sur notre planète.

Corrélation entre la durée des cycles solaires et la température du globe

• Des chercheurs astrophysiciens Danois qui travaillent depuis une dizaine d'années sur ce problème ont eu l'idée originale de tracer sur un même graphique la température moyenne du globe de 1750 à 2000 (courbe blanche ci-contre) et la durée des cycles solaires pendant la même période (en jaune sur le même graphique).

• 

• A moins d'être aveugle, on voit que cela a bien l'air d'être le cas !

• Pensée unique fr Le débat en cours sur le réchauffement climatique sous la loupe ...

L'effet de serre remis en question par des physiciens théoriciens !

• Le crédo de l'effet de serre est très sérieusement contesté par des physiciens théoriciens et thermodynamiciens qui expliquent que la théorie de l'effet de serre ne tient pas la route, viole les lois fondamentales de la physique et que certains calculs de température qui ont conduits aux chiffres mille fois répétés, sont absolument faux...

• Pensée unique fr L'effet de serre remis en question par des physiciens théoriciens!

• Pensée unique fr Paroles de grands chercheurs sur le réchauffement climatique

• Pensée unique fr Sept bonnes raisons de douter de l'effet de serre anthropogénique

-

4 Präsentationen de

S. Frederic (Fred) Singer	PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service; Founder of the Science & Enviromental Policy Project

Verschiedene Professoren und Meteorologen

Professor Philip Stott and others

• en/fr sous-tiré Climat in the past / climat dans le passé
  de In diesem Video wird die wundervolle mittelalterliche Warmzeit (Medieval Warm Period) beschrieben, in der mit grossem Reichtum Kathedralen gebaut wurden. In der darauffolgenden grausigen kleinen Eiszeit (Little Ice Age) herrschten Hungesnöte und es wurden "Hexen" verbrannt, denen, wie heute den CO2 Verursachern eine Schuld am Klima zugeschrieben wurde. Vor diesen beiden Perioden gab es die noch mehrere wärmere, über 3'000 Jahre dauernde Perioden, wie das Holicene Maximum, in denen auch die Eisbären überlebt haben. Es wird auch darauf hingewiesen, dass unmittelbar nach 1940, in der das vom Menschen verursachte CO2 stark zunahm, die Temperatur sank. Es ist also auch heute nicht der Mensch, der für den Klimawandel verantwortlich ist.

Dr. Wolfgang Thüne

Ernst-Georg Beck	Dipl. Biologe, Biesheim, Frankreich

de Neue Forschungen der CO2-Konzentrationen in der Vergangenheit
en New research on CO2 concentrations in the past
fr Nouvelles recherches sur la concentration du CO2 dans le passé

• de Die CO2-Angaben des IPCC sind falsch!
  Das Kyoto-Protokoll basiert auf falschen Angaben!

  Beck hat nachgewiesen, dass die CO2-Angaben des IPCC auf denen das Kyoto-Protokoll basiert, nicht richtig sind. Auch die von Al Gore viel gerühmten Eisbohrkerne werden in dieser Beziehung falsch interpretiert.

  Damit ist ein weiterer Beweis erbracht, dass das vom Menschen verursachte CO2 keinen Einfluss auf eine Klimaänderung hat (und es daher auch nichts nützt mehr CO2 zu erzeugen, wenn es kälter werden sollte).

  Wenn die CO2-Treibhausteorie mit der Gegenstrahlung weiterhin aufrechterhalten wird, muss nach der Meinung von Beck von Betrug gesprochen werden.

  en IPCC does not give correct datas!
  The protocol of Kyoto is based on wrong figures!

  fr Les indications du GIEC (IPCC) sont fausses!
  Le protocol de Kyoto se base sur des valeurs qui sont fausses!

de Erläuterungen und Kurven: Gores Gasblasen verdunkeln wahre CO2-Daten
de Ist der Mensch wirklich an der Klimaänderung schuld? (Word-doc)
en Slides of this presentation: Berlin 30. 05.2007 EIKE Meeting
en The Fraud of Global Warming: True C02 Record Buried Under Gore
de 180 Jahre CO2 Gasanalyse der Luft mit chemischen Methoden
de/en 180 Years of atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods
fr Des variations qui varient ...quand et comme il faut!
fr 180 ans de CO2 atmosphérique analysés par méthodes chimiques

en Pre-industrial CO2 levels were about the same as today. How and why we are told otherwise?

• Ernst-Georg Beck:

  Modern greenhouse hypothesis is based on the work of G.S. Callendar and C.D. Keeling, following S. Arrhenius, as latterly popularized by the IPCC.

  Review of available literature raise the question if these authors have systematically discarded a large number of valid technical papers and older atmospheric CO2 determinations because they did not fit their hypothesis?

  Obviously they use only a few carefully selected values from the older literature, invariably choosing results that are consistent with the hypothesis of an induced rise of CO2 in air caused by the burning of fossil fuel.

  "Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942 the latter showing more than 400 ppm."

• Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski:

  The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere.
  

  This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false."

• CFP Canada Free Press / Dr. Tim Ball
  2008-12-10 en Pre-industrial CO2 levels were about the same as today. How and why we are told otherwise?

-

5 Presentations en

Friends of Science

Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate

Professor S. Frederic (Fred) Singer

• NIPCC-Report / S. Fred Singer
  2008-04 en Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate
  2008-04 en Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate
  

Science & social aspects of climate change

Professor Robert (Bob) M. Carter

• en 5 Tests of CO2
  Part 1 Part 2
• en Science & social aspects of climate change
  Part 1 Part 2 Part 3
• en Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause?
  Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4

-

6 Présentations fr

Marcel Leroux	Professeur de climatologie PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University Jean Moulin of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

C'est la nature et non l'activité humaine qui détermind le climat

• Le rapport de NIPCC
  2008 fr C'est la nature et non l'activité humaine qui détermind le climat

Le changement climatique est-il d'origine humaine?

• Climate Skeptic
  2008-11-18 fr Le changement climatique est-il d'origine humaine?

-

7 Wettbewerb: Die Herausforderung
en The Ultimate Global Warming Challenge (UGWC)
fr L'enjeu

JunkScience.com:

en The Ultimate Global Warming Challenge (UGWC)

$500,000 will be awarded to the first person to prove, in a scientific manner, that humans are causing harmful global warming. The winning entry will specifically reject both of the following two hypotheses:

UGWC Hypothesis 1

• Manmade emissions of greenhouse gases do not discernibly, significantly and predictably cause increases in global surface and tropospheric temperatures along with associated stratospheric cooling.

UGWC Hypothesis 2

• UGWC Hypothesis 2
  The benefits equal or exceed the costs of any increases in global temperature caused by manmade greenhouse gas emissions between the present time and the year 2100, when all global social, economic and environmental effects are considered.

• JunkScience.com en The Ultimate Global Warming Challenge (UGWC)

↑