潇洒人生路
人的一生最重要的是自由和随之而来的责任。
今年二月，英国环保部长DAVID MILIBAND和教育部长ALAN JOHNSON宣布将向全英国3385所中学发送一部有关气候变化的电影。
这部电影就是戈尔制作的，全面阐述他的全球变暖理论, 在美国连获嘉奖的记录片"一个不容忽略的真相"（AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH）。
今年9月，一位叫Stewart Dimmock, 今年45岁的英国卡车司机，因他的两个上中学的儿子从学校得到了记录片,而起诉英国政府。
这位卡车司机说：“我象其他人一样关心环境问题，但我决定我的孩子不能在教室里被政治游戏所玩弄。”
目前，法官判他胜诉。
判决书中指出这部电影有9大误导，并要指出英国教育部为这部电影所编写的教师指导原则只是加助了该片的政治宣传。如果要在学校放映这部电影的话，英国政府要修改有关原则，要明确说明：
1。本片是政治作品，只是一面之词。
2。不说明而擅自放映该片的老师可能触犯1996教育法的第406部分，犯政治说教罪。3。要向学生特别强调该片的9个不准确之处。
这9大误导是:
1.The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
2.The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
3.The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
4.The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
5.The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
6.The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
7.The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
8.The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
9.The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
http://tocom.blogspot.com/2008/07/blog-post_12.html
摘要：本文根据大量资料全面介绍了人造全球暖化骗局的各个方面。这11个骗局是：1，多数原始温度数据采集点不合格。2，温度数据采集点所在地的城市化。 3，错了！你们看到的温度历史曲线根本不是实际数据。4，严重夸大二氧化碳的作用。5，被奉若神明的电脑模型。6，没有物理证据的惊人结论。７，不存在的科学界共识。8，科研过程的腐败。9，严重的利益冲突。10，严重夸大自然气候现象。11，不能被证伪的科学。这是至今为止全面介绍人造全球暖化骗局的唯一中文文章。
1，大多数的原始温度数据采集点不合格
前气象预报专家Anthony Watts原本也是一名人造全球暖化（以下简称AGW）的虔诚信徒。可是，随着他作为专业人员亲身经历的一个个无法解释的事实，加上媒体报道明显的歇斯底里，Watts改变了自己的看法。现在，他的个人博客成为世界上最受欢迎的全球暖化博客，访问量甚至超过了鼓吹AGW歇斯底里的RealClimate。近年来，Watts和一群志同道合的志愿者们致力于调查原始温度数据采集点的质量问题。截至4月份，他们已经实地调查了534个气象站。按照美国官方的国家海洋大气管理局（NOAA）的气象站标准，他们发现已经调查的气象站中，有56％是严重不合格的（误差高于5摄氏度）；87%的气象站是不合格的（误差高于1摄氏度）。这些不合格气象站的大问题有：位于空调边上，位于停车场里面汽车边上，位于阳光暴晒的屋顶上，等等。
这些不合格的气象站的测量数据多数是偏向暖化一边的。例如，......
yes, 有的老中喜欢崇拜权威，不喜欢听不同的意见。 问好. : )
楼下这些看客讨论的观点都挺有意思的， 这就是好处啊！
"Reasonable people may defer", 这好像是那个调查克林顿的独立检察官先生的名言吧， 中国人慢慢会习惯的：））
谢谢分享这篇文字，祝好！
well said. Glad to c u here.
1。戈尔的环保主张确实领先于其他很多的美国政治家，这是事实。
2。戈尔现在是因为不在其位、不谋其政，所以他能够做到特别洒脱。
3。对于任何一个美国的当权者来说，要在控制温室气体排放等方面采取大的行动，都不是很容易的事。
哎，小咂这才象话。
这个话题比较专业，我只是从另一个角度来谈。要半天我可没时间，你贴过来我们看就是了。这里有很多很专业的网友。
我听布什讲话也有同样感觉。
global warming 有太多的话要说，那天有至少半天时间的话在来和小no大大的白话一番。今天就算了。
祝早日突破百万。
我认为: 科学里只有绝对的真理，没有绝对的权威。
当科学界同政治搅到一起，科学便失去了尊严。
中国的情况何不如此？老毛搞大跃进，李鹏搞三峡，不都是有一批科学家在后面摇旗呐喊？
没想到在文学城还能有您这样清醒的人，幸会。: )
有件事你是说对了, 我确实不懂气候学. 但我告诉你, 我是曾经以第一作者在 SCIENCE 上发过文章的. 我相信你在具体的计算上比我懂得多. 但是, 在比这些具体事物更高的层面上, 我最低不是没有资格的.那位GORE先生是什么个SCIENCE 的背景啊? 怎么他说的就成了金科玉律啦? 你们这些搞气候的, 居然要一个只知道去发明INTERNET的骗子来宣布: THE DEBATE IS OVER, 太讲不过去了吧. 还口口声声是资深, 也太没面子了吧.
在科学上, 有一条经久耐用的原则: RIGHT AT THE TIME 的发表最好不要相信.
我从来没有反对进行气候研究. 但是, 这位GORE的介入, 只能是对科学界的玷污. 估计你还太年轻, 不知道宣布"THE DEBATE IS OVER" 就是要强迫世界上所有持不同意见的人, 包括SCIENTIST, 闭嘴, 从此断绝经费来源. 这不是经费之争, 那是什么?
GORE只是一个不成功的肮脏的POLITICIAN (政客)而已. 此公政治上失意, 转而进入商场. 这个WARMING 问题真是让他大赚了一把. 还把一些自以为肩负拯救地球重任的人们整得团团转.
是啊, GORE不去领奖, 飞机也照样飞. 反正我们不烧汽油, 别人也回烧的. 何必节约能源, 减少排放呢? 反正别人也会把能源消耗掉的, ANYWAY. 八缸的车 GORE 还是照样要做的.
这也就是为什么GORE 不会关掉他的强污染的生意的原因了. 反正别人也会做的.
在LIBERRAL中, 本人只佩服 NADER 一人. 此公真好汗. 他反对气体排放, 因而从来不开车, 只做火车, 即使是在去总统竞选辨认的路上.
"I met quite a few general people in USA they have very strong opposition on science for human induced global warming." What the F**K were you trying to say? General people? people who used to be generals?
我没有说我的观点绝对正确，诚实的说我做研究确实不够严谨，而且我研究的只是气候领域里的一个小方向。我最近已退出IPCC了，我只是把气候科学里的主流观点介绍一下而已。IPCC是来自100多个国家代表90％以上主流科学家的气候专家小组，里面诺奖院士不不计其数，比你ZT里的那些退休人员不知有名多少。尽管它最权威了，但未必说服的了你，和无根的浮萍 。从无根的浮萍 的贴看，他对气候科学一窍不通，根本无法对话，基本的辐射，环流方程公式你都不懂，谈何“说服”？
气候科学家对全球变暖下肯定的结论，说DEBATE IS OVER NOW,非但不是为了骗取研究经费，反而是断了财路：你都已经研究清楚有答案了，政府还给你经费做什么？你以为都像你“无根的浮萍”这么傻啊？
“无根的浮萍”还叫GORE 先生不要去领奖， 他不去飞机就不开了？还说什么“世界是变化的. 天气暖和点有什么不好?”说这话的不是WZ就是RZ，不必再说什么了，浪费我资深科学家的时间。
Gore's prize: A fraud on the people ZT
Sunday, Oct. 14, 2007
Five Norwegians gave a prize to Al Gore, and all the world is supposed to heed his counsel henceforth. No, thanks.
Alfred Nobel felt horrible about the uses to which his invention -- dynamite -- was put. So he endowed the Nobel Peace Prize and instructed that it go "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
Al Gore has done exactly none of those things.
Gore, however, did write a book and make a film about global warming. He has become the second environmental activist to win the peace prize in the past four years. Wangari Muta Maathai won it in 2004 for planting trees.
Thus we have indisputable confirmation that the Nobel Peace Prize is no longer a serious international award. In 1994 the five Norwegian politicians who award the prize gave it to the murdering thug Yasser Arafat. Two years before that they gave it to literary fraud Rigoberta Menchu, whose autobiography was largely fabricated. (An example: The brother she supposedly watched die of malnutrition was later found by a New York Times reporter to be very much alive and well.)
On Friday the prize was given to Al Gore and the International Panel on Climate Change. Two days before, a British judge ruled that Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth," contained so many errors (read: lies) that it could be shown in British public schools only if accompanied by a fact sheet correcting the errors.
The Nobel Peace Prize is worse than a joke. It's a fraud. It is such a transparent fraud that the five Norwegian politicians who award it have been reduced to defending their decision by concocting elaborate rationalizations. This year they laughably claimed that Gore deserves the prize because, well, global climate change" may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the Earth's resources," and "there may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars." (Emphasis ours.)
And Islamic terrorists may give up jihad and sing Kumbaya after listening to old Cat Stevens records. But that's no basis for distributing the world's formerly most prestigious prize.
If winning this useless medal prompts Al Gore to get into the presidential race, which we doubt, the irony will be that the American people will turn a more skeptical eye to His Smugness than the Nobel committee did.
The American public won't accept at face value Gore's self-righteous proclamations or his self-serving predictions of looming global catastrophe. And Gore has to know that, which is why he will almost certainly stick to the world of make-believe -- Hollywood and International Do-Goodery -- where he can pretend to be the great sage and savior he wishes he really were and left-wing Europeans and thespians try to convince us he is.
Steve Lytte
October 14, 2007
ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".
Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.
His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee honoured Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans and global warming.
"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."
At his first appearance since the award was announced in Oslo, Mr Gore said: "We have to quickly find a way to change the world's consciousness about exactly what we're facing."
Mr Gore shared the Nobel prize with the United Nations climate panel for their work in helping to galvanise international action against global warming.
But Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.
However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of cooling would begin soon and last for several years.
"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Dr Gray said.
During his speech to a crowd of about 300 that included meteorology students and a host of professional meteorologists, Dr Gray also said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error.
He cited statistics showing there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.
"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said.
He said his beliefs had made him an outsider in popular science.
"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."
sad~~
您可以同意，别人也可以反对您的观点。不过通过您所说的来看，对不起，好像您还不是一个“很”严谨的科学家。为什么您说的就一定是正确的，目前您还没拿出任何有说服力的东西。
我不是科学家，我只是反映一下英国法官判决的事实，给读者一个了解真相的平台。您要愿意相信媒体所说的一切，请问，as far as I know, 这么大的事为什么美国ABC，NBC，CBS，CNN，FOX都没有报道？
能不能给个链接？ 谢谢。
中文媒体是这样翻译的，我不认为很准确。
谢谢你提供的资料。
谢谢您的评论！说的太好了！！终于有明白人说明白话了！！！
What you said is so misleading unless you have difficulties to understand English although you are using it.
Read it again. Now I just want to laugh at what you said, instead of smiling at.
"
In his full judgement the Judge listed nine inaccuracies rather than the 11 from the interim judgement - two appear to have been grouped together and another omitted. In the interests of clarity we have accordingly revised the details below.
The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth has been the subject of a legal action by New Party member Stewart Dimmock. The Court found that the film was misleading in nine respects and that the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisors served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.
In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children."
作者:美国之音
【按： 2007年10月10日，英国法官Mr Justice Burton裁定，英国教育部在给学生放映戈尔的电影《An Inconvenient Truth》的时候，要附加一个指导说明，以平衡电视片里对人造全球暖化的一边倒的倾向，以及电影里存在的9个明显错误（nine significant errors）。如果英国教育部官僚不同意这个裁决，可以尝试上诉。如果同意这个电视片有错误，为什么还要配着观看指导给学生看？难道其他教学内容，他们也是明知有问题但还是要以行政命令的方式配发给学生吗？
本文是2006年的旧文。】
（美国之音记者： 沈鸿辉）美国前副总统戈尔制作的一部有关全球变暖的影片最近在美国和加拿大等地的电影院上映。这部纪录片以全球气候变暖为主题，叫做《难以忽视的真相》。
*戈尔：二氧化碳使气候发生变化*
戈尔说，大多数科学家都认为人类排放的二氧化碳使地球的气候发生很大的变化。
他认为，自从1970年以来，北极的冰帽不断缩减，美国西部有两百个城镇的气温创下最高记录。
*卡特：依据过于薄弱*
对于戈尔的观点，科学界有着不同的反应。
澳大利亚詹姆斯库克大学的海洋地质物理学实验室的教授卡特不同意戈尔的观点。
卡特表示：“戈尔言论的依据过于薄弱。”
卡特说，戈尔所谓的大多数科学家实际上只有极少数从事过气象研究工作，所以，他们的理论不应该受到重视。
*鲍尔：只研究后果不研究原因*
另外，加拿大学者提姆.鲍尔也认为许多科学家只是研究气候变暖的后果，而不是气候变化的原因。
曾经在加拿大的温尼伯大学担任气候学教授的鲍尔博士说：戈尔提到的科学家们有很多专门研究气候改变所产生的影响，例如：其中一些生物学家所研究的对象，从昆虫到北极熊到毒漆树无所不包。
他说，他们是很优秀的研究人员。但是，他们对地球气候改变的原因缺少特殊的了解，他们通常只能告诉我们：在他们从事研究的地方，气候的改变对当地环境造成什么样的影响，所以，他们只是研究气候影响的专家，而不是研究气候改变起因的专家。
鲍尔博士说，在戈尔的影片当中，很多观察全球气候改变的专家把他们的研究，集中于电脑模型的设计，而这种电脑模型只是虚拟的未来情景，是假设性的，不是真正的预测，很可能使决策人员和公众受到误导。
*陈文源：气候变暖不可否认*
美国海洋及大气总暑的陈文源博士则认为，地球气候变暖是不可否认的事实。
他说：“自然变化过去几百年，几千年来来回回不知道有多少次，但那些变化都跟工业化没有关系。”
陈文源博士为，地球变暖是事实。至于变暖是自然现像的一部份，还是人造的呢？比如烧太多的煤，用太多的汽油，释放放出太多的二氧化碳。这是现在还没有弄清楚的问题。
*派特森：二氧化碳和温度没有很大关系*
卡勒顿大学的古气候学教授派特森说：“从不同时期的角度来看，二氧化碳的多少和地球的温度之间并没有很大的关系。”
他说，事实上，在四亿五千万年以前，空气当中二氧化碳的含量比现今要多出十倍以上，而在那段时期，地球却是处于五亿年以来最为寒冷的状态，有了这样的证据，人们怎么会相信二氧化碳的少许增加是过去百年来，气温略为上升的主要原因？
派特森最后说，数以百计的研究结果显示，在所有不同的时期，地球的温度都和包括太阳光亮在内的天空自然现像有着相当程度的关系。
*温德豪特：冰川壁裂解是正常现象*
对于戈尔的影片当中所呈现的南极冰川融入大海的惊人景像，芬兰赫尔辛基大学海洋地质学教授温德豪特表示了不同的意见。
他说：“冰川壁的裂解是由于冰川扩大而产生的正常现象，南极的低温使冰川壁不能融化，当冰川沉到海底的时候就会分裂成很多壮观的冰川。”
*卡里安：南极半岛仍保持良好平衡状态*
瑞典斯德哥尔摩大学的荣誉教授卡里安博士说：“南极半岛有些面积不大的部份最近分裂出去，以前也发生过类似的情形，在这一带，南极的温度最近升高，原因可能是低压气流的位置略有改变。”
不过卡里安指出，整个南极半岛仍然保持良好的平衡状态，积雪量超过融化的雪。
温尼伯大学的鲍尔博士解释说，不断扩大的南极冰川在流入海洋之后就会崩解成更多的冰山。
卡里安博士说：“把格陵兰和南极的冰加在一起每年可能使海平面升高0.03毫米，不会造成任何影响。千百万年来，南极经历过冷暖截然不同的气候，如果认为南极在可以预见的将来会完全融化，那只是一种不切实际的假设。”
*卡里安：北极气温没有持续上升*
关于戈尔在影片中形容的北极冰帽逐渐缩小的情形，加拿大学者鲍尔说：“戈尔提到的只是北极盆地的一部份，时间是处于寒冷期的60年代的10月，后来的观测是在较为温暖的90年代9月间进行的，使用的是完全不同的技术。”
卡里安说：“根据阿拉斯加大学教授波里亚科夫在2003年所发表的一项报告，自从1940年以来，北极的温度起伏不定，有些人认为，温度的上升使北极熊的生存面临威胁，但是，总括来讲，北极的气温并没有持续上升。”
卡里安说，有好几份已经公布的记录显示，过去50年来，北极的温度只有下降。
*摩根：加拿大冰川略为缩减但没有大量融化*
曾经担任世界气象组织顾问的摩根博士说：“在过去30年当中，加拿大北极区的冰川厚度略为缩减，但是，并没有大量融化。
“据有关方面的记录显示：从1971年到1981年，冰川的厚度保持了平均到高于平均的水平，从1981年到1982年，厚度缩减了15%。但是，从 1983年到1995年，厚度迅速恢复到平均和略高于平均的水平，从1996年到1998年，冰川骤然缩减30%，而从2001年以来，又逐渐增加到接近正常水平。”
对于戈尔的有关全球变暖的观点，摩根博士指出，大西洋的西北部正在逐渐冷却，除此之外，在太平洋的北部和南部，在整个亚马逊流域，在南美和加勒比海的北部海岸，在东地中海和黑海，在高加索和红海，在新西兰，甚至于在印度的恒河流域，都有大片的区域处于冷却的状态。
*史本塞：美国各地气温无反常变化*
戈尔提到美国西部有两百个城镇的气温创下最高记录，美国阿拉巴马大学的科学家史本塞认为，戈尔的说法会使人产生错误的印象。
史本塞说：在美国数以千计的城镇当中，有些地方创下高温的记录，并不是异常的现象，他说，实际的统计资料显示，总体来说，美国各地的气温最近没有什么反常的变化。
*黄其淦：保护环境就要解决能源污染*
美国海洋及大气总署的另外一位专家黄其淦博士认为，人类要保护环境就必须要解决损害环境的能源污染问题。他主张大力开发再生能源，认为海洋发电是解决能源问题的最好办法。
他说，利用海水进行温差发电要比水利发电便宜的多，而且还可以把海水变成淡水，解决人们的吃水问题。
黄其淦博士说，目前人们大量使用石油，而地球上石油的储备是有限的，将来势必出现石油短缺，油价上涨的问题。而再生能源是取之不尽，用之不竭的。
－－原载：《美国之音》（VOA），2006-06-23
http://www.voanews.com/chinese/archive/2006-06/w2006-06-23-voa55.cfm
老兄, MEDIA 是几乎完全被 LIBERAL 所控制的. 你在美国这么多年, 看来是白呆了. "科学"的定义本身就是"可争论". MEDIA 只是把另一面同时介绍给读者, 你就要跳起来, 你还好意思说你是"SCIENTIST"? 还"SENIOR"? GIVE ME A BREAK.
事实上, 相当一部分SCIENTIST 之所以要鼓动GLOBAL WARMING, 只是为了多得经费而已. 2005 年, KATRINA 之后没多久, 就有一篇文章发表在SCIENCE 上, 说那是WARMING 造的孽. 任何一个严肃的科学家都不可能在如此短的时间内对如此复杂的问题作出定论. 无它, 经费之争使然.
ANY WAY, 世界是变化的. 天气暖和点有什么不好?
GORE 先生的 BUSINESS 释放的温室气体有没有加以控制啊? 我手头的资料显示这位老兄好象根本不在呼.
GORE 先生去领奖的时候, 一路上又该多出多少温室气体啊? 其实, 这位老兄要是宣布:"为了减少温室气体排放, 兹决定不去领奖, 只通过 INTERNET 发表谈话." 那轰动效应是不会小的. 将是NOBEL PRIZE 历史上的破天荒之举. 可惜, GORE 是不会地. 因为 WARMING 问题只是他吸引世界眼球, 以保持其影响力, 进而日进千金的办法.
这个世界不应忘记, GORE 先生曾经宣称他发明了INTERNET.
回到正题,就前两三周,我看到在英国,TELEGRAPH07年9月14日上报道的,专门和老戈观点唱反调的科学家,而且,我感觉有一定的道理.
要真是后者对啦?老戈的奖还收回来吗?嘿嘿.
I am a senior scientist working on climate change for more than 15 years. I was born in China and now in USA. I was one of member of IPCC since 1996.
I met quite a few general people in USA they have very strong opposition on science for human induced global warming. I guess news medias, including internet, blogs like this one, played a very important roel in misleading people. To show fairness, news media always likes to present two sides of story, even only 5% scientists who are driven by various reasons, don't believe global warming caused by human activities. This kind of press readers that global warming issue is still uncertain and in debating. Some people, maybe or may not including author of this one, they just want to post articles with oppsite opinion with widely-accepted one to attract eyeball and incraese "click rates", don't care the scietific basis or truth at all. Your misleading poster now is hang on front page of wenxuecity for a while, just because of this reason. No many people will read it if you title your article to praise Gore and say he deserves the prize.
I'm also interested in the source of the Chinese part of the post, because it's very inaccurate. Here I cite the rule of the judge from wiki entry for "An inconvenient truth":
'...London High Court judge Michael Burton ruled that the film could continue to be shown; that "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate." and that the film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC,[60] and did not amount to political indoctrination...'
Apparently, unlike what the Chinese part of the post wants people to beleive, the judge didn't think the movie is "political indoctrination", and believed that it's mostly scientifically sound. And it will be continue to be shown. In other words, the parent's accusation was largely dismissed.
My wife is from Jilin province. Her home town used to be covered by thick snows for more than 3 months a year. Now there is not such kind of thick snow season at her hometown anymore.
地球确实是越来越热了!
Fine with me and welcome. : ) haven't you noticed the smiling signes I used : )
I know perfectly where those words are from, and I also think it's perfectly ok for me to comment on those words here on your blog, since you choose to post the story here.
"I suggest you send it to UK government. : ) I am here to tell the story as it is.
: ) I am not part of the story. "
come on, your blog got listed on Wenxuecity, and I think it's ok to leave a few comments on the story you told.
Those words are from the judge, not me. : ) Hope you understand now.
This is not true.
Global warming caused by human activity is a concensus amoung climate scientists. This view is accepted by majority of them. Thus, there are much fewer climate scientists who say no than those who say yes.
1。本片是政治作品，只是一面之词。
What is the meaning of this? The movie features a politacion doesn't mean it all political. The movie presented a lot of facts and results of scientific research. And the view of the movie is very well accepted by majority of main stream climate scientists. The movie is out of good will, as Gore has been an environmentalist ever since the beginning of his political career. Bush attacked him for this during the election, as is shown in the movie.
I suggest you send it to UK government. : ) I am here to tell the story as it is.
: ) I am not part of the story.
...
The Associated Press contacted more than 100 climate researchers and questioned them about the film's veracity. All 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie said that Gore conveyed the science correctly
...
My comment:
The courthouse isn't a scientific institution. The rule of the judge doesn't mean the movie isn't scientifically sound. If you really want to evaluate the veracity of the movie, hear what the scientific community has to say.
The movie could be inaccurate in certain details, I havn't check the 9 mistakes in the artical you cited. But I want to point out that even many peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals have mistakes, typoes and so on. Having a few mistake doesn't mean that the movie is worthless or is overall misleading.
Changes in global temperature and sea levels reflect natural fluctuations that have occurred throughout history and are not caused by pollution, according to an environmental professor who spoke at a UNM forum Thursday.
Fred Singer of the University of Virginia, is an atmospheric physicist who has worked on satellite weather studies for several government agencies. He said that while sea levels are rising, the temperature is not and recent concern that human activity will lead to climate change is unfounded. His presentation, ??oeGlobal Warming: Fact or Fiction,??? was part of an annual series of talks sponsored by Sigma Xi, an interdisciplinary science honor society.
??oeScientists ignore data,??? he said, as he presented temperature study results that showed natural fluctuations over several centuries. ??oeIf you have a hypothesis that you strongly believe in, you tend to ignore data that contradicts it.
According to Singer's data, which came from various entities, including the U.N.-based Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, temperatures did warm from about 1850 until 1940, but have dropped ever since despite the spike in industry after World War II.
Based on studies of ocean sediments, the temperature has been gradually cooling for about 3,000 years.
During the last 20 years, a period in which many have suggested evidence of warming from the greenhouse effect, various methods of measurement have provided conflicting data, Singer said. Sensors that measure surface and ocean temperature have recorded temperature increases, while satellite and balloon weather equipment have showed no warming.
With increasing greenhouse gasses, you would expect the atmosphere to get warmer,he said.
Singer said urban encroachment on weather-measuring instruments, which are often located near airports, has resulted in some of the disagreement.
Where people live, it is getting warmer, he said.
Ocean temperatures are measured by ships, often at inlets for engine cooling water, which measure at inconsistent depths, he said.
One American Meteorological Society study of California showed an increase of temperatures in the urban areas, but none in the rural areas, he said.
We all know the center of a city is always warmer than the suburbs,he said.
Singer showed several examples of data retrieved by what he called proxy measurements measuring something related to temperature and deducing that temperature. Scientists have used tree rings, ice cores, coral, cave stalactites and other geological formations to get proxy measurements of temperatures from 100,000 years ago, he said.
Proxy data shows a warm period at about 1,000 A.D., which Singer said corresponded historically with a fertile era, followed by a little ice age until the mid-19th century, which was characterized by increased starvation and disease.
The last ice age was about 20,000 years ago and temperatures have remained relatively the same since then.
Proxy data have not found any data showing any warming trend after 1940,Singer said. Before that, yes.
Recorded sea level changes have shown a linear increase of about seven inches per century, Singer said. But since a steep rise between four and 5,000 years ago, corresponding to the warm period, the ocean has risen at about the same rate, irrespective of whether or not the climate has warmed or cooled, he said.
Melting glaciers and expansion from warming plays a small role in the rising sea level, he said, but the real culprit is the slowly melting western ice sheet of Antarctica, a phenomenon that has taken place for thousands of years.
This is on a millennial scale is not affected by the climate now,??? he said. The sea level will keep rising at the same rate no matter what we do.
As for what can be done about global warming, he said, the answer is: very little.
He said though he didn??(TM)t believe the temperature was changing, even if it did, scientists were in disagreement over whether or not that would be a bad thing.
He compared a 1999 study by the U.N. panel that found a 200 percent increase in carbon dioxide would lower the gross domestic product of countries due to agricultural problems caused by climate change to one by Yale professor Robert Mendelsohn that found the opposite. Some predict carbon dioxide will double within 50 years, he said.
??oe(The Yale study) assumes farmers are smart; that they will adapt before the climate change,??? he said.
In support of President Bush's decision to abandon the Kyoto Treaty, which would limit carbon dioxide emissions, he said the problem lies in developing countries, not the United States and Europe.
He said countries such as India, China and Mexico would dominate increased trends in carbon dioxide production.
??oeThe Kyoto Treaty is completely ineffective ??” it only involves a small decrease in emission from a small fraction of the world??(TM)s developed countries,??? he said. ??oeBy 2050 it would result in a 1/20 degree temperature lowering ??” that??(TM)s absolutely negligible. We would need 10 or 20 Kyotos to make an impact.
I believe the human effect is there, but it's being washed out by natural processes.
Existence of a scientific consensus
Main article: Scientific opinion on climate change
There are questions regarding the proportion of scientists who agree or disagree on the existence of human-caused warming. Environmental groups, many governmental reports, and the non-U.S. media often claim virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of human-caused warming. Opponents either maintain that most scientists consider global warming "unproved," dismiss it altogether, or decry the dangers of consensus science. Others maintain that either proponents or opponents have been stifled or driven underground .
The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation. The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.
A 2004 essay by Naomi Oreskes in the journal Science reported a survey of 928 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers related to global climate change in the ISI database. Oreskes stated that "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. ... This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies."
Benny Peiser claimed to have found flaws in Oreskes' work, but his attempted refutation is disputed. Peiser later withdrew parts of his criticism, also commenting that "the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous."
A 2006 op-ed by Richard Lindzen in The Wall Street Journal challenged the claim that scientific consensus had been reached, and listed the Science journal study as well as other sources, including the IPCC and NAS reports, as part of "an intense effort to suggest that the theoretically expected contribution from additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected." Lindzen wrote in The Wall Street Journal on April 12, 2006,
“ But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis. ”
Similarly, Timothy Ball asserts that skeptics have gone underground for "job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent."
Surveys of the scientific community have found the opposite problem -- New Scientist notes that in surveys a much larger fraction of U.S. scientists consistently state that they are pressured by their employers or by U.S. government bodies to deny that global warming results from human activities or risk losing funding.
In response to claims of a consensus on global warming, some skeptics have compared the theory to a religion, to scientific support for the eugenics movement, and to discredited scientific theories such as phlogiston and miasma.
Petitions
To support his claim of a lack of consensus, the website of prominent skeptic Fred Singer's Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) lists four petitions. According to SEPP, these petitions show that "the number of scientists refuting global warming is growing."
The petitions are:
The 1992 "Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming," signed by 47 scientists, claims "such policy initiatives [those concerning the Earth Summit scheduled to convene in Brazil in June 1992] derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action. We do not agree."
The "Heidelberg Appeal" (also from 1992), signed by over 4000 scientists including 72 Nobel Prize winners.This appeal makes no mention of climate change or any other specific environmental issue, but is essentially a plea for policy based on "scientific criteria and not on irrational preconceptions".
Singer's "Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change" (1995 and 1997). Critics point out that most of the signatories lack credentials in the specific field of climate research or even physical science in general. Followup interviews found at least twelve signers who denied having signed the Declaration or had never heard of it.
The "Oregon Petition," which was circulated in 1998 by physicist Frederick Seitz and contains 17,800 signatures. Critics point out that many of the signatories of the Petition lack a background in climatology and that the petition itself mentions only "catastrophic heating" and not the broader issue of global warming. The petition's website claims that all of the 17,100 signatories are qualified scientists with "technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data."
In April 2006, a group describing itself as "sixty scientists" signed an Open Letter to the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to ask that he revisit the science of global warming and "Open Kyoto to debate." As with the earlier statements, critics pointed out that many of the signatories were non-scientists or lacked relevant scientific backgrounds. For example, the group included David Wojick, a journalist, and Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist. More than half the signatories cited past or emeritus positions as their main appointments. Only two (Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer) indicated current appointments in a university department or a recognized research institute in climate science. One of the signatories has since publicly recanted, stating that his signature was obtained by deception regarding the content of the letter. In response shortly afterward another open letter to Prime Minister Harper endorsing the IPCC report and calling for action on climate change was prepared by Gordon McBean and signed by 90 Canadian climate scientists initially, plus 30 more who endorsed it after its release.
Nothing wrong with that~
Do I know? Do I have data? Of cuz I do. Do you? Are you a scientist? Is global waming your field of research? Are you an expert on this?
I know I am not, I am here to tell other side of the story as it is. The judge in England has ruled that film is misleading to kids at school. This will not happen in American, or will it?
Very glad that Al Gore won the Nobel Prize!
very true. Thanks. : )
What I have posted here is another side of the story, so people can have their own judgement on the issue of global warming.
However, there are as many scientists who say no to global warming as those who say yes.
Thanks for your comments, well said.
正如博主的格言，
人生的路，潇洒地走. 跌到了，爬起来，再来！
相信美国前副总统戈尔就是这样的人。
对于戈尔的获奖和他所提出的全球变暖的理论，无论是大肆渲染和赞扬，还是抨击其误导，可以肯定的是， 他今天所取得的成绩是他付出艰辛的努力获得的。
7年前他惨烈的跌倒了。7年后他为自己赢得了比当总统更荣耀的光芒。。。从另一个层面，他战胜了小乔治.布什。
不用大家去质疑什么了，我们的地球确实是越来越热了，这是不争的事实。
正如博主的格言，
人生的路，潇洒地走. 跌到了，爬起来，再来！
相信美国前副总统戈尔就是这样的人。
对于戈尔的获奖和他所提出的全球变暖的理论，无论是大肆渲染和赞扬，还是抨击其误导，可以肯定的是， 他今天所取得的成绩是他付出艰辛的努力获得的。
7年前他惨烈的跌倒了。7年后他为自己赢得了比当总统更荣耀的光芒。。。从另一个层面，他战胜了小乔治.布什。
不用大家去质疑什么了，我们的地球确实是越来越热了，这是不争的事实。