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.
|Independent economist and publicist|
de Klimakatastrophenzweifel, eine Einführung
A) Total Solar Irradiance (TSI)
B) Temperature Development
Two things are noteworthy:
Every time when solar activity was low, there were periods of cold weather.
Whenever the sun was strong (like in the current warm period, the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period), there were warm periods.
Secondly, there is obviously a 1,000-year cycle with alternating hot and cold periods.
|Fritz Vahrenholt||Professor, Dr.|
Geniessen Sie die Wärme noch solange sie dauert.
Sauerstoff (O2): 21 %
Von den 0,04 Prozent CO2 in der Luft produziert die Natur 96,5 Prozent, der Rest, also 3,5 Prozent, der Mensch.
Der Mensch produziert also 3,5 % von 0,04 % = 0.0014 % vom CO2 der Luft.
Das sind etwa 1 Teil CO2 auf 71'000 Teile Luft oder 1/71'000 der Luft.
Temperatur vor CO2
Wichtig: Das CO2 kann also nicht der Grund
für die Erwärmung sein!
Wenn die CO2-Konzentration zunimmt, ist die
Erwärmung wegen der Sättigung kleiner.
Die Sonnenaktivität steuert die Kosmischen Strahlen und dadurch die Wolkenbildung
Mehr Sonnenaktivität → weniger Wolken → es wird wärmer.
More solar activity → less clouds → warmer Earth.
Augmentation de l'activité solaire → moins de nuages → réchauffement de la terre.
Mehr CO2 → mehr Wachstum.
|Klimawandel, Teil II||Climate change, Part II||Changement climatique, partie II|
|Der CO2-Treibhauseffekt||The CO2 Greenhouse Effect||L'éffet de serre du CO2|
Die NASA erwähnt in dieser Energiebilanz keinen Treibhauseffekt!
|Glaube und Hysterie||Climate Hysteria||Hystérie sur le climat|
I'm an atmospheric physicist.
I've published more than 200 scientific papers.
For 30 years I taught at MIT, during which time the climate has changed remarkably little.
But the cry of "global warming" has grown ever more shrill. In fact, it seems that the less the climate changes, the louder the voices of the climate alarmists get.
So, let's clear the air and create a more accurate picture of where we really stand on the issue of global warming or, as it is now called - "climate change".
There are basically three groups of people dealing with this issue.
Groups one and two are scientists.
Group three consists mostly, at its core, of politicians, environmentalists and the media.
Group one is associated with the scientific part of the United Nation's International Panel on Climate Change or IPCC (Working Group 1).
These are scientists who mostly believe that recent climate change is primarily due to man's burning of fossil fuels-oil, coal and natural gas.
This releases CO2, carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere and, they believe, this might eventually dangerously heat the planet.
Group two is made up of scientists who don't see this as an especially serious problem.
This is the group I belong to. We're usually referred to as skeptics.
We note that there are many reasons why the climate changes - the sun, clouds, oceans, the orbital variations of the earth, as well as a myriad of other inputs.
None of these is fully understood, and there is no evidence that CO2 emissions are the dominant factor.
But actually there is much agreement between both groups of scientists.
The following are such points of agreement:
The climate is always changing.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas without which life on earth is not possible, but adding it to the atmosphere should lead to some warming.
Atmospheric levels of CO2 have been increasing since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 19th century.
Over this period (the past two centuries), the global mean temperature has increased slightly and erratically by about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit or one degree Celsius; but only since the 1960's have man's greenhouse emissions been sufficient to play a role.
Given the complexity of climate, no confident prediction about future global mean temperature or its impact can be made.
The IPCC acknowledged in its own 2007 report that "The long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."
Most importantly, the scenario that the burning of fossil fuel leads to catastrophe isn't part of what either group asserts.
So why are so many people worried, indeed, panic stricken about this issue.
Here's where Group Three comes in - the politicians, environmentalists, and media.
Global warming alarmism provides them, more than any other issue, with the things they most want:
For politicians it's money and power.
For environmentalists it's money for their organizations and confirmation of their near religious devotion to the idea that man is a destructive force acting upon nature.
And for the media it's ideology, money, and headlines.
Doomsday scenarios sell.
Meanwhile, over the last decade, scientists outside of climate physics have jumped on the bandwagon, publishing papers blaming global warming for everything from acne to the Syrian civil war.
And crony capitalists have eagerly grabbed for the subsidies that governments have so lavishly provided.
Unfortunately, group three is winning the argument because they have drowned out the serious debate that should be going on.
But while politicians, environmentalists and media types can waste a lot of money and scare a lot of people, they won't be able to bury the truth.
The climate will have the final word on that.
I'm Richard Lindzen, emeritus professor of atmospheric sciences at MIT, for Prager University.
|Richard S. Lindzen||
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth,
Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences
Massachussets Institute of Technology (MIT),
Membre de l'Académie des sciences américaine et ex-représentant auprès du GIEC
Founder of The Weather Channel,|
Chief Meteorologist of KUSI-TV in San Diego
The future of our civilization lies in the balance.
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
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.
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
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).
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.
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:
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.
It is the true believers who, when they have no facts on their side, try to silence their critics.
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.
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.
William (Bill) M. 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.
Dr. William Gray and Bill Clinton with Al Gore
Gehirnwäsche / Brainwash
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.)
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.
⇧ Aussagen / Statements / Déclarations
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.
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.
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.
↑ Eine Übersicht der Klimadebatte
|Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change|
Zweite Internationale Klimakonferenz in Berlin
en Second Conference on Climate in Berlin 2009-12-04
|Zweite Klimakonferenz in Berlin 2009-12-04||Second Conference on Climate in Berlin 2009-12-04||Deuxième conférence sur le climat à Berlin 2009-12-04|
Die Natur und nicht der Mensch bestimmen das Klima
en Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate
fr C'est la nature et non l'activité humaine qui détermind le climat
↑ Professor Fred Singer on Climate Change
↑ 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.
Wissenschaftler entlarvt schonungslos die Klima Behauptung der NOAA
en Senate testimony 2016 / NOAA temperature
← John Christy: Climatologist - Science, Politics and Morality
Science, Politics and Morality
Die Moral des Klimawandels
en The Morality of Climate Change
The Morality of Climate Change
← No consensus on IPCC's level of ignorance
We should always begin our scientific pronouncements with this
← en IPCC Scientist Rejects Nobel Prize, Global Warming Hoax
Stellungnahme von Dr. John Christy vom 13. Mai 2003 gegenüber
dem Ressourcenausschuss des US-Repräsentantenhauses
en Senate testimony 2003
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.
de Stellungnahme von Dr. John Christy vom 13. Mai 2003 gegenüber dem Ressourcenausschuss des US-Repräsentantenhauses
fr Petite histoire du réchauffement planétaire et le débat en cours ...
... 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).
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)
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:
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)!
Le débat en cours
Pour eux encore, le CO2 émis par l'homme n'a qu'une influence négligeable dans cette affaire !
La bombe H
Corrélation entre la durée des cycles solaires et la température du globe
L'effet de serre remis en question par des physiciens théoriciens !
|Vincent Courtillot||Géophysicien, Directeur de l'Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris|
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
|Dipl. Biologe, Biesheim, Frankreich|
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
en Pre-industrial CO2 levels were about the same as today. How and why we are told otherwise?
Friends of Science
|Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change|
|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.
Professeur de climatologie|
PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University Jean Moulin of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
$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
UGWC Hypothesis 2