There is No Global Warming

[Rasputin]

There is no global warming. Period.

You can't find a real scientist anywhere in the world who can look you in the eye and, without hesitation, without clarification, without saying, kinda, mighta, sorta, if, and or but...say "yes, global warming is with us."

There is no evidence whatsoever to support such claims. Anyone who tells you that scientific research shows warming trends - be they teachers, news casters, Congressmen, Senators, Vice Presidents or Presidents - is wrong. There is no global warming.

Scientific research through U.S. Government satellite and balloon measurements shows that the temperature is actually cooling - very slightly - .037 degrees Celsius.

A little research into modern-day temperature trends bears this out. For example, in 1936 the Midwest of the United States experienced 49 consecutive days of temperatures over 90 degrees. There were another 49 consecutive days in 1955. But in 1992 there was only one day over 90 degrees and in 1997 only 5 days.

Because of modern science and improved equipment, this "cooling" trend has been most accurately documented over the past 18 years. Ironically, that's the same period of time the hysteria has grown over dire warnings of "warming."

Changes in global temperatures are natural. There is no proof that temperature is affected by anything that man has done.

In fact, recent severe weather has been directly attributed to a natural phenomenon that occurs every so often called El Nino. It causes ocean temperatures to rise as tropical trade winds actually reverse for a time.

The resulting temperature changes cause severe storms, flooding and even draught on every continent on earth.

It's completely natural. El Nino has been wreaking its havoc across the globe since long before man appeared.

How about the reports that the polar ice cap is melting?

Well, yes it is. In fact, it has been for about a million years or so. We are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North American and Northern Europe.

There's at least one environmentalist, named Al Gore, who is panicking over the possibility that we may soon lose Glacier National Park in Montana because the ice is melting.

One hates to tell him that we've already lost the glacier that used to cover the whole country.

Perhaps he'll want to start working for new regulations from the Interior Department to begin immediately restoring this lost historical environmental treasure. Re-establishing a sheet of ice covering the entire continent would certainly serve to stop mining, timber cutting and urban sprawl.

The truth is, someday humans may be able to take tropical vacations at the North Pole - and it will be perfectly natural.

Yet our world is being flooded with the dire predictions of Global Warming.

We are being warned of killer heat waves, vast flooding and the spread of tropical diseases. Ocean levels are rising, they say. America's coast lines are doomed, they tell us. Hurricanes and tornadoes have already become more violent, we are warned. Floods and droughts have begun to ravage the nation, they cry.

Any change in temperatures, or an excessive storm or extended flooding is looked upon as a sure sign that environmental Armageddon is upon us. Diabolical environmentalists are using the natural El Nino phenomenon to whip people into a Global Warming hysteria.

TWO KINDS OF SCIENTISTS

We are assured by the White House that scientists everywhere are sounding these warmings and that we may only have one chance to stop it.

Well, as the debate rages, we find that there really are two kinds of "scientists."

There are those who look at facts and make their judgements based on what they know.

Their findings can be matched by any other scientist, using the same data and set of circumstances to reach the same conclusions. It's a age-old practice called peer reviewing. It's the only true science.

And then there are those who yearn for a certain outcome and set about creating the needed data to make it so. Usually you will find this group of scientists greatly dependent on grants supplied by those with a specific political agenda who demand desired outcomes for their money.

Let's just take NASA, for example - the most trusted name in American science.

A lot of NASA scientists have fallen into this trap. Environmental science has become the life-blood of the space program as the nation has lost interest in space travel. To keep the bucks coming, NASA has justified shuttle trips through the use of earth-directed environmental research. And the budgets keep coming.

At the same time, many of NASA's scientists come with a political agenda in great harmony with those who advocate the green agenda. And they're not above using their position to aid that agenda whenever the chance is available.

This was never more clearly demonstrated than in 1992 when a team of three NASA scientists were monitoring conditions over North America to determine if the Ozone layer was in danger.

Inconclusive data indicated that conditions might be right for ozone damage over North America, if certain things happened.

True scientists are a careful lot. They study, they wait and, many times they test again before drawing conclusions.

Not so, the green zealot. Of this three-member NASA team, two could not be sure of what they had found and wanted to do more research.

But one took the data and rushed to the microphones, with all of the drama of a Hollywood movie, announced in hushed tones that NASA had discovered an Ozone hole over North America.

Then Senator Al Gore rushed to the floor of the Senate with the news and drove a stampede to immediately ban freon - five years before Congress had intended - and without a suitable substitute. He then bullied President George Bush to sign the legislation by saying the Ozone hole was over Kennebunkport - Bush's vacation home.

Two months later NASA announced, on the back pages of the newspapers, that further research had shown that there was no such damage. But it was too late. Remember that when you have to buy a new air conditioner or refrigerator for no reason other than your freon has run out of the old one.

[Rasputin]

FLAWED COMPUTER MODELS

Then there are those computer models. Night after night Americans watch the local news as the weatherman predicts what kind of a day tomorrow will be. These meteorologists, using the most up-to-date equipment available, boldly give you the five-day forecast.

But it's well known that, even with all of their research and expensive equipment, it really is just a "best guess." There are just too many variables. If the wind picks up here it could blow in a storm, if the temperature drops here it could start to snow. The earth is a vast and wondrous place. Weather does what it wants.

Yet those who are promoting the global-warming theory have the audacity to tell you they can forecast changes in the global climate decades into the future.

The truth is computer models are able to include only two out of 14 components that make up the climate system. To include the third component would take a computer a thousand times faster than we now have. To go beyond the third component requires an increase in computer power that is so large only mathematicians can comprehend the numbers.

Moreover, even if the computer power existed, scientists do not understand all the factors and the relationships between them that determine the global climate.

So it's an outrage for Al Gore, Bill Clinton and the Sierra Club to tell you that Global Warming is a fact and that we Americans must now suffer dire changes in our lifestyle to stop it.

SCIENTISTS ARE NOT ON AL'S BAND WAGON

And so too is it an outrage for Al Gore to tell you that most true scientists now agree that global warming is a fact.

What he doesn't tell you is that almost 500 scientists from around the world signed the Heidleburg Appeal in 1992 just prior to the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, expressing their doubts and begging the delegates not to bind the world to any dire treaties based on global warming. Today that figure has grown to over 4000.

He also doesn't tell you that recently a Gallup Poll of eminent North American climatologists showed that 83 percent of them debunked the global warming theory.

And the deceit knows no bounds. The United Nations released a report at the end of 1996 saying Global Warming was a fact, yet before releasing the report two key paragraphs were deleted from the final draft.

Those two paragraphs, written by the scientists who did the actual scientific analysis said:

1. "none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases."

2. "no study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to ...man-made causes."

Global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the people of the world - bar none.

THE CLIMATE CHANGE PROTOCOL

Those who have been fighting against the green agenda have been warning that modern-day environmentalism has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting the environment.

Rather it is a political movement led by those who seek to control the world economies, dictate development and redistribute the world's wealth.

They use the philosophical base of Karl Marx, the tactics of Adolph Hitler and the rhetoric of the Sierra Club.

The American people have been assaulted from all directions by rabid environmentalists.

School children have been told that recycling is a matter of life and death.

Businesses have been shut down. Valuable products like freon have been removed from the market. Chemicals and pesticides that helped to make this nation the safest and healthiest in the world are targeted for extinction.

Our entire nation is being restructured to fit the proper green mold. All of it for a lie about something that doesn't exist.

But the lie is about to grow to massive proportions --- and the game is about to get very serious indeed.

In December of this year Bill Clinton will travel to Kyoto, Japan to sign a legally-binding United Nations treaty called the Climate Change Protocol.

The sole argument for this treaty is that Global Warming is a fact and we must take severe action to stop it.

Right now the Clinton Administration is bombarding the airwaves with the sales pitch. Conferences are being held in cities across the country. Special reports, magazine articles and documentaries are all being used to pound home the message - global warming is here - we must stop it.

But the most offensive assault on the expression of free thought by the American people, as the Administration drives to sell you this snake oil, was committed by Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt. Babbitt said that anyone opposed to the fight to stop Global Warming was "unAmerican."

[Rasputin]

He accused those opposed to the Climate Change Treaty of engaging in a "conspiracy to hire pseudo scientists to deny the facts." So now, according to Babbitt, to disagree with the Clinton Administration is tantamount to treason.

In fact the Climate Change Protocol is a legally binding international treaty through which signing nations agree to cut back their energy emissions to 15 percent below 1990 levels. And the treaty says this goal is to be accomplished by as early as the year 2010.

That means that all of the energy growth since 1990 would be rolled back, plus 15 percent more in just twelve years.

Yes, there are negotiations, debates and arguments taking place over the exact terms of the treaty as we speak. Perhaps the final version won't be so severe.

But it doesn't matter. Such a massive disruption in the American economy, particularly since it has nothing to do with protecting the environment, will devastate this nation.

To meet such drastically-reduced energy standards will, in the short run, cost the United States over one million jobs. Some estimate it will cost over seven million jobs in 14 years. If the treaty sends the economy into a tailspin, as many predict, it will cost even more jobs.

It will cost the average family $1,000 to $4,000 dollars per year in increased energy costs. The cost of food will skyrocket.

It has been estimated that in order for the United States to meet such a goal the U.S. gross domestic product will be reduced by $200 billion - annually.

To force down energy use the Federal government will have to enforce a massive energy tax that will drive up the cost of heating your home by as much as 30 to 40 percent.

In all likelihood there will be a tax on gasoline - as high as 60 cents per gallon.

There will be consumption taxes and carbon taxes.

The purpose of these punitive costs is to drive up the cost of modern living in order to force you to drastically change your lifestyle. That is the diabolical plan behind this restructuring scheme.

Every single product that is produced with the use of energy will increase in price. Including items like aspirin, contact lenses and tooth paste.

Yet just recently Bill Clinton said that compliance with the treaty would not hurt the economy. He said he can "grow the economy and do right by the environment."

The truth is, to date, the Clinton administration has refused to release an economic impact analysis of the effects of the treaty.

But a leaked study by the Department of Energy's Argonne Laboratory finds that the treaty will cripple six U.S. industries including paper, steel, petroleum refining, chemical manufacturing, aluminum and cement. That about sums up the economy.

When Clinton is through complying with the treaty you may find yourself sitting in a dark house after lights have been ordered off early in the evening, unable to drive your car because of gas shortages, unable to walk to the shopping mall because stores will be ordered closed after dark, even if you have a job and money to spend.

GLOBAL RAID ON AMERICAN WEALTH

But perhaps you still are not convinced. Maybe you still cling to the idea that such drastic action is necessary - that our president and the UN delegates are really in a panic over global warming and are trying to find a solution.

Then ask yourselves why the treaty will only bind developed nations to its draconian emission levels.

You see, only developed industrial nations will be bound by the treaty.

Undeveloped Third-World nations will be free to produce whatever they want. These will include China, India, Brazil and Mexico. And guess what? 82% of the projected emissions growth in coming years is from these countries.

Now ask yourself, if the Climate Change Protocol is all about protecting the environment - then how come it doesn't cover everybody? The truth, of course, is that the treaty is really about redistribution of the wealth.

The wealth of the United States is and has always been the target. The new scheme to grab the loot is through environmental scare tactics.

If, today, you were to attend a UN session on the Climate Change Protocol you would find yourself in a discussion with excited delegates from Third-World countries. They would make comments to you like, "when the technology transfer takes place my country will begin producing this or that item."

Translation - when the United States is stupid enough to fall for this scheme, the third world will take up the slack and get rich.

And international corporations, who owe allegiance to no nation, will bolt America and move their factories, lock, stock and computer chip, to those Third-World countries where they will be free to carry on production.

But that means the same emissions will be coming out of the jungles of South America instead of Chicago.

So where is the protection of the environment? You see it's not about that - is it?

Still not convinced? One more thing. Hidden in the small print of the treaty is a provision that calls for the "harmonizing of patent laws."

Now, robbing a nation of its patent protection is an interesting tactic for protecting the environment, don't you think?

CAN IT BE STOPPED?

Bill Clinton, pushed by Al Gore and the massive green lobby, is determined to sign that treaty. The war has been engaged.

Industry is finally beginning to wake up to the terrifying threat of the green monster that it helped to create. For the past three decades industry has given into every outrageous green demand. And it has fueled the monster by filling green coffers with massive tax-deductible donations. Now industry finds itself trapped.

But more frightening is the fact that many prominent proponents of property rights and limited government still fail to see the danger in the treaty. Many say the Senate will never ratify such a treaty.

They point out that, in a vote of 95-0, the U.S. Senate rejected in a "non-binding" resolution the Climate Change Protocol. That overwhelming vote, they say, will stop Clinton in his tracks.

That resolution was presented by Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia. He, along with Congressman John Dingle of Michigan have led the opposition against the treaty. Republican leadership, so far, has been silent.

It is, of course, commendable that Senator Byrd and Congressman Dingle have taken the lead to do "something" to protect American interests. But both of them are established liberal Democrats, who have based their opposition solely on the fact that only industrial nations are tied to the treaty.

That's not fair, they say, and so they oppose the treaty - "as now written." Apparently they are taking the stand that if America must be enslaved, then it's only fair that the rest of the world share our misery.

Not once have they said the whole concept is wrong. Not once have they challenged the validity of the science that is based on the supposed fact of global warming.

Is this then the wall of defense that we are to hide behind? Are we now to entrust the very future of our Republic onto the shoulders of Senator Byrd and Congressman Dingle? That appears to be the current wisdom of our leaders on Capitol Hill.

Wary Americans, of course, know what will happen next. The story is all too familiar. Very soon Clinton will summon Byrd and Dingle to the White House and offer them a compromise. Then everyone will smile for the cameras and the Republicans, in the spirit of bipartisanship, will give away the store. In fact, that process has already begun.

So Bill Clinton is moving full-speed-ahead with his plan to travel to Kyoto, Japan this December to sign the Climate Change Protocol. When he does, and after the Senate has ratified it, the final blow will have been struck.

The United States of America will begin a long, agonizing decent - strangled by its own hand.

The question now is; can it be stopped? And more importantly, will we even try.$ e target. The new scheme to grab the loot is through environmental scare tactics.

[Rasputin]

همزمان با گزارشها مبنی بر آب شدن یخ های قطبی در اثر افزايش دمای زمين، زنگهای خطر در بین کارشناسان محیط زیست و برخی سیاستگذاران به صدا در آمده است.
مقابله با روند گرمایش زمین بیشتر از همه به همت سیاستمدارانی بستگی دارد که کشورشان می توانند موثرترین نقش را ایفا کنند.

از دیدگاه جورج بوش، رئيس جمهور آمريکا، و دولتش بهبود محیط زیست بشر در گرو ایجاد و توسعه تکنولوژی های جدید است.

در نگاه دولتمردان کنونی آمریکا اولا وخامت اوضاع محیط زیست، آنگونه که بیشتر کارشناسان میگویند، اثبات شده نیست و در ثانی نباید ملاحظات زیست محیطی مانع از رشد و پویائی اقتصادی ایالات متحده شود لذا همین رشد اقتصادی است که میتواند ضامن پیشرفتهای تکنولوژی شود.

تکنولوژی هائی که کارشناسان و فعالان محیط زیست در پی ان هستند، تکنولوژی های "سبز"، کالاهائی چون اتوموبیل هائی اند که با سوختهای غیر فسیلی کازر میکنند یا جداره هائی که کارگزاری آنها در داخل دیوار منازل از هر رفت گرما در اين منازل جلوگیری می کند.

جان هولدرون یکی از کارشناسان برجسته زیست محیطی در آمریکا معتقد است اگر قرار باشد با تکنولوژی های "سبز" مانع از ادامه گرمایش زمین شد باید اساس آن تکنولوژی باشد که از آمیخته شدن دی اکیسد کربن با جو زمین جلوگیری کند.

بنا به برآورد جان هولرون اگر مصرف کنندگان از تکنولوژی هائی که هم اینک در بازار وجود دارند استفاده کند قادر خواهد بود تراکم گازهای گلخانه ای را در حدی نگه دارد که متوسط افزایش افزایش دمای زمین از سه درجه سانتیگراد تجاوز نکند.

اما مشکل اینجاست که خرید چنین تکنولوژی ای برای مصرف کننده بسیار گران تمام می شود.

جان مامبریت فعال محیط زیست هم بر روی لوازم مصرفی خانوراها حساب زیادی باز می کند و می گوید این لوازم موجود هستند ولی از آنجائیکه هر کسی توان مالی خرید آنها را ندارد باید مشوقهای لازم هم به تولید کننده هم به مصرف کننده داده شود.

سیاستهای دولتها


يک شرکت کننده تظاهرات مخالفان گرم شدن زمين در لندن

از آنجائیکه سیاستهای دولتها می تواند الگوهای مصرفی جامعه را تغییر دهد یکی از سیاستهای پیشنهادی جان مامبریت این است که به هر کس "سهمیه دی اکسیر کربن" تعلق بگیرد یعنی آنکه هر کس تا حد معینی اجازه داشته باشد دی اکسید کربن بسوزاند.

هر کسی هم که بنابر این پیشنهاد بخواهد بیشتر از سهمش دی اکسید کربن بسوزاند باید سهم کسی را بخرد که کمتر از جیره اش دی اکسید کربن سوزانده است تا به این ترتیب تقاضا برای تکنولوژی های سبز بالا برود و به تبع آن انگیزه شرکتها برای تولید این تکنولوژی ها.

با این حال طبیعت با هر تابستان طولانی و سیل های ویرانگرش این پیام را می رساند که کوتاهی های بشر می تواند خشم ان را موجب شود.

در اینجا است که نگاه های نگران کارشناسان به سوی سیاستهای کلان دولتها و بودجه هائی معطوف می شود که به محیط زسیت اختصاص می دهند.

جان اهکورت دیگر کارشناس محیط زیست توضیح می دهد با توجه آنکه به واکنشهای محیط زیست به تدابیر زیست محیطی انسانها پس از مدتهای طولانی خود را نشان می دهد باید همین الان دست بکار شد تا تازه ثمره آن را چهل تا پنجاه سال دیگر دید.

بر اساس گزارشهای رسمی که منتشر شده اند چنانچه از هم اینک چاره ای برای مقابله با گرمایش زمین تدبیر نشود طبیعت به نقطه ای خواهد رسید که دیگر هیچ تکنولوژی ای چاره ساز نخواهد بود.

[Rasputin]

Experts slam upcoming global warming report

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Later this week in Paris, climate scientists will issue a dire forecast for the planet that warns of slowly rising sea levels and higher temperatures.

But that may be the sugarcoated version.

Early and changeable drafts of their upcoming authoritative report on climate change foresee smaller sea level rises than were projected in 2001 in the last report. Many top U.S. scientists reject these rosier numbers.

Those calculations don't include the recent, and dramatic, melt-off of big ice sheets in two crucial locations:

They "don't take into account the gorillas -- Greenland and Antarctica," said Ohio State University earth sciences professor Lonnie Thompson, a polar ice specialist. "I think there are unpleasant surprises as we move into the 21st century."

Michael MacCracken, who until 2001 coordinated the official U.S. government reviews of the international climate report on global warming, has fired off a letter of protest over the omission.

The melting ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are a fairly recent development that has taken scientists by surprise. They don't know how to predict its effects in their computer models. But many fear it will mean the world's coastlines are swamped much earlier than most predict.

Others believe the ice melt is temporary and won't play such a dramatic role.

That debate may be the central one as scientists and bureaucrats from around the world gather in Paris to finish the first of four major global warming reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The panel was created by the United Nations in 1988.

After four days of secret word-by-word editing, the final report will be issued Friday.

The early versions of the report predict that by 2100 the sea level will rise anywhere between 5 and 23 inches. That's far lower than the 20 to 55 inches forecast by 2100 in a study published in the peer-review journal Science this month. Other climate experts, including NASA's James Hansen, predict sea level rise that can be measured by feet more than inches.

The report is also expected to include some kind of proviso that says things could be much worse if ice sheets continue to melt.

The prediction being considered this week by the IPCC is "obviously not the full story because ice sheet decay is something we cannot model right now, but we know it's happening," said Stefan Rahmstorf, a climate panel lead author from Germany who made the larger prediction of up to 55 inches of sea level rise. "A document like that tends to underestimate the risk," he said.

"This will dominate their discussion because there's so much contentiousness about it," said Bob Corell, chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, a multinational research effort. "If the IPCC comes out with significantly less than one meter (about 39 inches of sea level rise), there will be people in the science community saying we don't think that's a fair reflection of what we know."

In the past, the climate change panel didn't figure there would be large melt of ice in west Antarctica and Greenland this century and didn't factor it into the predictions. Those forecasts were based only on the sea level rise from melting glaciers (which are different from ice sheets) and the physical expansion of water as it warms.

But in 2002, Antarctica's 1,255-square-mile Larsen B ice shelf broke off and disappeared in just 35 days. And recent NASA data shows that Greenland is losing 53 cubic miles of ice each year -- twice the rate it was losing in 1996.

Even so, there are questions about how permanent the melting in Greenland and especially Antarctica are, said panel lead author Kevin Trenberth, chief of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado.

While he said the melting ice sheets "raise a warning flag," Trenberth said he wonders if "some of this might just be temporary."

University of Alabama at Huntsville professor John Christy said Greenland didn't melt much within the past thousand years when it was warmer than now. Christy, a reviewer of the panel work, is a prominent so-called skeptic. He acknowledges that global warming is real and man-made, but he believes it is not as worrisome as advertised.

Those scientists who say sea level will rise even more are battling a consensus-building structure that routinely issues scientifically cautious global warming reports, scientists say.

The IPCC reports have to be unanimous, approved by 154 governments -- including the United States and oil-rich countries such as Saudi Arabia -- and already published peer-reviewed research done before mid-2006.

Rahmstorf, a physics and oceanography professor at Potsdam University in Germany, says, "In a way, it is one of the strengths of the IPCC to be very conservative and cautious and not overstate any climate change risk."

[Rasputin]

Global climate change is "very likely" to have a human cause, an influential group of scientists has concluded.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said temperatures were probably going to increase by 1.8-4C (3.2-7.2F) by the end of the century.

It also projected that sea levels were most likely to rise by 28-43cm, and global warming was likely to influence the intensity of tropical storms.

The findings are the first of four IPCC reports to be published this year.

"We can be very confident that the net effect of human activity since 1750 has been one of warming," co-lead author Dr Susan Soloman told delegates in Paris.

Strong language

The report, produced by a team tasked with assessing the science of climate change, was intended to be the definitive summary of climatic shifts facing the world in the coming years. IPCC PROJECTIONS
Probable temperature rise between 1.8C and 4C
Possible temperature rise between 1.1C and 6.4C
Sea level most likely to rise by 28-43cm
Arctic summer sea ice disappears in second half of century
Increase in heatwaves very likely
Increase in tropical storm intensity likely


IPCC report: World reaction
IPCC report: UK reaction

The agency said that it would use stronger language to assess humanity's influence on climatic change than it had previously done.

In 2001, it said that it was "likely" that human activities lay behind the trends observed at various parts of the planet; "likely" in IPCC terminology means between 66% and 90% probability.

Now, the panel concluded that it was at least 90% certain that human emissions of greenhouse gases rather than natural variations are warming the planet's surface.

They projected that temperatures would probably rise by between 1.8C and 4C, though increases as small as 1.1C (2F) or as large as 6.4C (11.5F) were possible.

In 2001, using different methodology, the numbers were 1.4 (2.5F) and 5.8C (10.4F).




How computers model climate

On sea level, there has been a more fundamental debate.

Computer models of climate do not generally include water coming into the oceans as ice caps melt. So the IPCC had to decide whether to exclude this from its calculations, or to estimate the effect of a process which scientists do not understand well but which could have a big impact.

They used the former, more conservative approach, projecting an average rise in sea levels globally of between 28 and 43cm. The 2001 report cited a range of nine to 88cm.

As for climate change influencing the intensity of tropical storms in some areas of the world, the IPCC concluded that it was likely - meaning a greater probability than 66% - that rising temperatures were a factor.

'Unequivocal'




Climate change: In graphics

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, said: "It is extremely encouraging in that the science has moved on from what was possible in the Third Assessment Report.

"If you see the extent to which human activities are influencing the climate system, the options for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions appear in a different light, because you can see what the costs of inaction are," he told delegates in Paris.


Achim Steiner, executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme (Unep), said the findings marked a historical landmark in the debate about whether humans were affecting the state of the atmosphere.

READ THE FINDINGS


IPCC report [2.2MB]
Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader
Download the reader here
"It is an unequivocal series of evidence [showing that] fossil fuel burning and land use change are affecting the climate on our planet."

He added: "If you are an African child born in 2007, by the time you are 50 years old you may be faced with disease and new levels of drought."

He said that he hoped the IPCC report would galvanise national governments into action.

At variance

But a study published on the eve of the IPCC report suggested that the international body's previous reports may have actually been too conservative.

HAVE YOUR SAY
Another day, another climate-change story. All of this leads to a deaf audience

Andy, MI, USA


Send us your views

Writing in the journal Science, an international group of scientists concluded that temperatures and sea levels had been rising at or above the maximum rates proposed in the last report, which was published in 2001.

The paper compared the 2001 projections on temperature and sea level change report with what has actually happened.

The models had forecasted a temperature rise between about 0.15C-0.35C (0.27-0.63F) over this period. The actual rise of 0.33C (0.59F) was very close to the top of the IPCC's range.

A more dramatic picture emerged from the sea level comparison. The actual average level, measured by tide gauges and satellites, had risen faster than the intergovernmental panel of scientists predicted it would.

The IPCC's full climate science report will be released later in the year, as will other chapters looking at the probable impacts of climate change, options for adapting to those impacts, and possible routes to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.

[Rasputin]

يك* گروه* پژوهشي* اعلام* كرده* است* با* گرم* شدن* زمين* سطح* آب* درياها* برعكس* آنچه* كه* پيش بيني* شده* بود،* در* حال* افزايش* است* و* سازمان* ملل* اين* خطر* را* دست* كم* گرفته* است*.
به* گزارش* نيوز* اين* ساينس،* محققان* از* پنج* كشور* از* جمله* استراليا* اعلام* كردند* با* توجه* به* تحقيقات* ماهواره اي،* سطح* آب* دريا* از* سال* *٣٩٩١* تا* *٦٠٠٢،* *٣/٣* ميلي* متر* افزايش* پيدا* كرده* است*.* اما* طبق* برآورد* هيئت* بين المللي* در* سال* *١٠٠٢* سطح* آب* دريا* سالانه* كمتر* از* *٢* ميلي* متر* كاهش* يافته* است*.
* در* حال* حاضر* دانشمندان* معتقدند* هنوز* زود* است* بالا* رفتن* سطح* آب* را* با* ميزان* انتشار* گازهاي* گلخانه اي* ربط* داد*.* به* عقيده* آنان* علت* بالا* رفتن* سطح* آب* درياها* مي* تواند* تغييرات* طبيعي* جوي* باشد*.

[Rasputin]

"با وجود اینکه که در دوران حاکمیت خردگرایی زندگی می کنیم، تمامی بحث گرم شدن کره زمین غیر علمی و فقط یک جور جنجال رسانه ای است." این جمله آغازین مستند تلویزیونی بود که روز پنجشنبه هشتم مارس از شبکه چهار بریتانیا پخش شد.
این برنامه که "کلاه برداری بزرگ گرم شدن کره زمین" نام دارد به دنبال به چالش کشیدن نظریه رایج در توضیح گرم شدن کره زمین و بیان این نکته بود که شرایط جوی کره زمین در طول سالیان دستخوش تغییرات بسیار زیادی بوده، بدون اینکه بشر نقشی در آن داشته باشد.

بر اساس این نظریه فعالیتهای بشر که شامل استفاده روزافزون از سوختهای فسیلی و تغییر در نحوه استفاده از سطح زمین می شود، باعث افزایش گازهای گلخانه ای از جمله دی اکسید کربن و متان در جو و باعث گرم شدن کره زمین شده است.

این نظریه در گزارش 'هيات بين المللی بررسی تغييرات آب و هوايی' (IPCC) گروهی وابسته به سازمان ملل، که اوایل ماه فوریه امسال منتشر شد، نیز تکرار شده که بر اساس آن بشر 'به احتمال خيلی زياد' عامل اصلی گرم شدن کره زمین معرفی شد.

به گفته سازندگان مستند شبکه چهار بریتانیا نظریه "نقش انسان در گرم شدن کره زمین" از قالب یک بحث علمی خارج شده و تبدیل به بستری برای ظهور ارزشهای جدید اخلاقی و سیاسی در عصر حاضر شده است و فعالان محیط زیست هرگونه بحث علمی که در صدد به چالش کشیدن این نظریه باشد را محکوم و آن را خطرناک معرفی می کنند.

این برنامه تلویزیونی باورهای نسبتا پذیرفته شده در مورد معرفی کردن تغییرات آب و هوایی به عنوان پدیدهای فقط مختص به عصر حاضر و نقش دی اکسید کربن در این پدیده را به زیر سوال می برد و باعث شکل گیری نگاهی کاملا متفاوت نسبت به پدیده گرم شدن کره زمین در ذهن بیننده می شود.

تغییر آب و هوای کره زمین


کره زمین در چند هزار سال گذشته دستخوش تغییرات جوی متنوعی بوده است

تغییرات آب و هوایی کره زمین یکی از عواقب گرم شدن کره زمین به شمار می آید. ولی به گفته برخی از دانشمندان تغییرات آب و هوایی در کره زمین امری بسیار عادی محسوب می شود و شواهد بسیار زیادی وجود دارد که طی چند هزار سال گذشته کره زمین دستخوش تغییرات جوی متنوعی بوده است، بدون آنکه بشر هرگونه دخالتی در آن داشته باشد.

در این مستند شواهدی عرضه شد که سیر گرم شدن فعلی کره زمین از دویست سال گذشته آغاز شده، پس از دوران یخ بندان طولانی که به عنوان "عصر یخی کوچک" شناخته می شود. در نقاشیهای به جای مانده از قرن چهاردهم از رودخانه تیمز در لندن، رودخانه یخ زده ای را نشان می دهد که برروی آن بازارچه هایی برپاست و اهالی این شهر مشغول اسکیت بازی بر روی آن هستند.

همچنین در"دوران گرم قرون وسطایی" دورانی قبل از "یخ بندان کوچک"، بین قرن دهم تا پانزده میلادی، دمای کره زمین بسیار بالاتر از دمای فعلی بوده است. به گفته دانشمندان تاثیر این گرما در معماری کلیسها و بناهای ساخته شده در این دوران مشهود است.

بر اساس شواهد موجود در لندن تعدادی زیادی تاکستان در نقاط مختلف این شهر وجود داشته که نامهای کنونی مکانهایی در این شهر حکایت از این موضوع می کند. دورانهایی گرمتر در هزاره های قبل نیز وجود داشته و باقی ماندن نسل تعداد زیادی از حیوانات نشان دهنده قابلیت تطبیق بسیاری از موجودات با شرایط متفاوت آب و هوایی است.

افزایش دی اکسید کربن


در قرن حاضر گرم شدن کره زمین با 35 سال تاخیر بعد از رشد فعالیتهای صنعتی بشر آغاز شده است

افزایش فعالیتهای صنعتی و به همراه آن تولید روزافزون آلاینده ها از دیگر نکاتی است که در زمینه نقش انسان در گرم شدن کره زمین مطرح می شود. ولی بر اساس اطلاعات آماری که در این مستند به آنها اشاره می شود، سیر گرم شدن کره زمین از سال 1940، دوران رشد فعالیتهای صنعتی بعد از جنگ جهانی دوم، سیری نزولی داشته و سی و پنج سال بعد این روند، سیر صعودی به خود می گیرد. چنین اطلاعات آماری ربط دادن دو مولفه نرخ تولید دی اکسید کربن و افرایش دمای کره زمین را به زیر سوال می برد.

همچنین سازندگان این برنامه با اشاره به اطلاعات آماری که در فیلم مستند ال گور "حقیقت تلخ" نیز استفاده شده، رابطه افزایش دی اکسید کربن و گرم شدن کره زمین را به زیر سوال می برند.

تحقیقی که این دو مستند به آن اشاره می کنند تحقیقی است که در یخچالهای قطب شمال انجام شده و با آزمایش لایه های مختلف یخ در این یخچالها نتایجی در مورد میزان دی اکسید کربن موجود در یخها و همچنین نرخ رشد میزان آنها ارایه کرده است.


ال گور در فیلم مستند خود رابطه بین میزان دی اکسید کربن موجود در جو و گرم شدن کره زمین را مستقیم اعلام می کند

ال گور در فیلم مستند خود رابطه بین میزان دی اکسید کربن موجود در جو و گرم شدن کره زمین را مستقیم اعلام می کند ولی آن را رابطه ای "پیچیده" می خواند. ولی این مستند تلویزیونی با استناد به اطلاعات آماری مشابه، هرگونه رابطه مستقیم را انکار می کند و به نتیجه ای کاملا متضاد می رسد: گرم شدن کره زمین باعث افزایش میزان دی اکسید کربن می شود، ازآنجایی که اقیانوسها منبع اصلی نگهداری گاز دی اکسید کربن به حساب می آیند و هر چه سطح آنها گرمتر، دی اکسید کربن بیشتری از آنها به جو کره زمین وارد می شود و بالعکس.

همچنین بر خلاف باور عمومی که بشر عامل اصلی تولید گاز دی اکسید کربن معرفی می شود، این برنامه با ارایه نتایج یافته های تحقیقی، آتشفشانها و گاز معده حیوانات راعامل اصلی تولید گاز دی اکسید کربن معرفی می کند که میزان آن چندین برابر تمامی گازهای تولیدی بواسطه فعالیت بشر است.

عامل واقعی گرم شدن؟

بر اساس نتیجه تحقیقی رابطه مستقیمی بین فعالیتهای خورشیدی و تغییرات دمای کره زمین در چهارصد سال گذشته وجود دارد

در این برنامه خورشید به عنوان عامل اصلی در تغییر دمای کره زمین در دوره های متفاوت زمبن معرفی شده است، یافته ای که تعدادی زیادی از دانشمندان و محققان از اویل دهه پنجاه میلادی به آن معتقد بوده اند.

در این نظریه لکه های خورشیدی که باعث بوجود آمدن میدانهای مغناطیسی قوی در سطح خورشید می شود و باعث ازدیاد اشعه های وارده به کره زمین می شود. به غیر از تاثیر مستقیم خورشید بر دمای کره زمین با تاثیر گذاری بر روی میزان تشکیل ابرها، خورشید در تغییر دمای کره زمین نیز نقش ایفا می کند.

در این مستند به تحقیقی اشاره می شود که در سال 1991 میلادی در موسسه هواشناسی دانمارک انجام پذیرفته رابطه مستقیمی بین فعالیتهای خورشیدی و تغییرات دمای کره زمین ا در چهارصد سال گذشته وجود دارد، رابطه ای که بین میزان دی اکسید کربن و افزایش دمای هوا وجود ندارد.

کمبود انرژی و نقش دولتها

در بخش پایانی این برنامه به دنبال معرفی عوامل تاثیر گذار در مطرح شدن نظریه نقش انسان در گرم شدن کره زمین، بحران انرژی در دهه هفتاد میلادی را به عنوان عامل اصلی معرفی می شود.

دهه هفتاد میلادی بهای نفت در بازارهای جهانی با افزایش ناگهانی همراه بود. چنین اتفاقاتی باعث شد که کشورهای صنعتی وابسته به واردات نفت به فکر تامین انرژی از منابعی به غیر از سوختهای فسیلی بیافتند، در زمانی که صحبتی از گرم شدن کره زمین در میان نبود.

اعتصاب معدن چیان در بریتانیا دولت محافظه کار مارگارت تاچر را در تامین انرژی در با چالش مواجه کرد

بطور مثال در زمانی که دولت محافظه کار مارگارت تاچر در بریتانیا با اعتصاب کارگران معدن روبرو شد، پیشنهاد تامین انرژی از طریق نیروگاهای هسته ای در بریتانیا مطرح می شود. افرادی که در این مستند با آنها گفتگو شده، ادعا می کنند که در این دوران بود که دولتها در حمایت از تحقیقات پیرامون نقش انسان در گرم شدن کره زمین منابع مالی گسترده ای را تخصیص دادند.

به گفته ریچارد لیندزن، پرفسور مطالعات جوی در ام آی تی آمریکا، میزان بودجه تخصیص یافته به تحقیقات مرتبط با تغییرات جوی از مبلغ هفتاد میلیون دلار در سال به بیش از دو میلیارد دلار در پایان دوره ریاست جمهوری جورج بوش پدر رسید و باعث بوجود آمدن تعداد زیادی شغل جدید و به نحوی یک صنعت جدید حول موضوع گرم شدن کره زمین شد.

در این مستند به غیر از دولتها ادعا شد که موضوع تغییرات آب و هوا امکان مناسبی را برای جنبشهای چپگرا فراهم کرد که پس از فروپاشی دیوار برلین به دنبال فرصت تازه ای برای انعکاس مبارزه طلبی خود بودند.

به گفته پاتریک مور یکی از موسسان گروه صلح سبز بحث تغییرات آب و هوا دارای تمامی شرایط لازم برای جلب گروههای چپ گرا بود: امکان نقد نظام سرمایه داری، دولتها و ابراز مخالفت با جریان جهانی شدن.

منافع رسانه ها

در این مستند پوشش رسانه ای نظریه نقش انسان در تغییرات جوی به عنوان منبع مناسبی برای تهیه خبرهای جذاب و گمانه زنی در مورد تغییرات آب و هوایی در آینده نه چندان دور معرفی شد که دست اندرکان رسانه ها برای حفظ منافع خود، هر چه بیشتر به پوشش و ربط دادن حوادث طبیعی به تغیرات جوی می پردازند، بدون آنکه مدارک علمی مستدلی ارائه دهند.

[Rasputin]

Winter in the northern hemisphere this year has been the warmest since records began more than 125 years ago, a US government agency says.
The combined land and ocean surface temperature from December to February was 0.72C (1.3F) above average.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said El Nino, a seasonal warming of parts of the Pacific Ocean, had also contributed to the warmth.

But it did not see the high temperature as evidence of man-made global warming.

The NOAA said that temperatures are continuing to rise by a fifth of a degree every decade. The 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1995.

Weather experts predict that 2007 could be the hottest year on record.

Greenhouse gases

"Contributing factors were the long-term trend toward warmer temperatures as well as a moderate El Nino in the Pacific," said Jay Lawrimore of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.




Climate change: In graphics

He added: "We don't say this winter is evidence of the influence of greenhouse gases."

However, Mr Lawrimore said the research was part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) process, which released a report last month that found global climate change "very likely" has a human cause.

"We know as a part of that, the conclusions have been reached and the warming trend is due in part to rises in greenhouse gas emissions," he said.

The IPCC panel concluded that it was at least 90% certain that human emissions of greenhouse gases rather than natural variations are warming the planet's surface.

They projected that temperatures would probably rise by between 1.8C and 4C by the end of the century, though increases as small as 1.1C (2F) or as large as 6.4C (11.5F) were possible.

[Rasputin]

Scare,a two-minute video highlighting the scare tactics of global-warming alarmists was produced for the Heartland Institute.




[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvLt3nU14W4[/ame]