Meltdown of the climate 'consensus'
By MATT PATTERSON
Last Updated: 4:46 AM, September 2, 2010
Posted: 11:57 PM, September 1, 2010
If this keeps up, no one's going to trust any scientists.
如果這保持下去，沒有人會信任任何科學家。
The global-warming establishment took a body blow this week, as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change received a stunning rebuke from a top-notch independent investigation.
全球變暖機構這星期備受打擊，因為聯合國跨政府氣候變化專門委員會(IPCC)得到一驚人的指責，來自一頂尖的獨立調查。
For two decades, the IPCC has spearheaded efforts to convince the world's governments that man-made carbon emissions pose a threat to the global temperature equilibrium -- and to civilization itself. IPCC reports, collated from the work of hundreds of climate scientists and bureaucrats, are widely cited as evidence for the urgent need for drastic action to "save the planet."
20年來，IPCC率先努力說服世界各國政府，人為的二氧化碳排放量對全球氣溫平衡構成威脅 - 和對文明本身。 IPCC的報告，整理自數百名氣候科學家和官僚的工作，被廣泛引用為證據，有迫切需要採取激烈行動去“拯救地球。”
Pachauri: UN big scored great grants for silly science.帕喬裡：聯合國大成功的大筆補助款用於愚蠢的科學大取得。
But the prestigious InterAcademy Council, an independent association of "the best scientists and engineers worldwide" (as the group's own Web site puts it) formed in 2000 to give "high-quality advice to international bodies," has finished a thorough review of IPCC practices -- and found them badly wanting.
但著名的國際科學院委員會，一個獨立協會“包含全球最優秀的科學家和工程師”（正如組織自己的網站所說那樣），成立於 2000年去給予“國際機構高質量的諮詢，”已完成一IPCC做法的全面檢討 - 並發現他們的全不夠格。
For example, the IPCC's much-vaunted Fourth Assessment Report claimed in 2007 that Himalayan glaciers were rapidly melting, and would possibly be gone by the year 2035. The claim was actually false -- yet the IPCC cited it as proof of man-made global warming.
例如，IPCC大肆鼓吹的第四次評估報告，在2007年聲稱喜馬拉雅冰川正在迅速融化，並可能 在2035年成為過去。宣稱實際上是虛假的 - 但IPCC引用它作為人為全球變暖的證據。
Then there's the IPCC's earlier prediction in 2007 -- which it claimed to have "high confidence" in -- that global warming could lead to a 50 percent reduction in the rain-fed agricultural capacity of Africa.
然後是IPCC的早前2007年預測 - 它聲稱有“高度信心” - 全球變暖可能導致非洲減少一半的雨水灌溉農業生產能力。
Such a dramatic decrease in food production in an already poor continent would be a terrifying prospect, and undoubtedly lead to the starvation of millions. But the InterAcademy Council investigation found that this IPCC claim was also based on weak evidence.
這一戲劇性的糧食生產下降，在一個已經很貧窮的大陸將是一可怕的前景，及無疑導致數百萬人的飢餓。但是國際科學院委員會的調查發現，這種IPCC說法亦是建基於疲弱的證據。
Overall, the IAC slammed the IPCC for reporting "high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence. Furthermore, by making vague statements that were difficult to refute, authors were able to attach 'high confidence' to the statements." The critics note "many such statements that are not supported sufficiently in the literature, not put into perspective or not expressed clearly.
總的來說，國際科學院委員會抨擊IPCC，為它報告時以“高度信心在一些聲明中而沒有什麼證據。此外，通過難以反駁的模糊聲明，作者能夠附上'高度信心'至聲明中。”批評者注意到“許多這類聲明是沒有足夠支持的文獻，沒有投入角度或沒有表達清楚。
Some IPCC practices can only be called shoddy. As The Wall Street Journal reported, "Some scientists invited by the IPCC to review the 2007 report before it was published questioned the Himalayan claim. But those challenges 'were not adequately considered,' the InterAcademy Council's investigation said, and the projection was included in the final report."
IPCC的一些做法只能被稱為偽劣，正如華爾街日報報導，“一些科學家在它發表前被IPCC邀請去檢討 2007年的報告，他們質疑喜馬拉雅的宣稱，但那些挑戰'沒有得到充分考慮，'國際科學院委員會的調查說，及投射被列入最後的報告。“
Yet the Himalayan claim wasn't based on peer-reviewed scientific data, or on any data -- but on spec ulation in a phone interview by a single scientist.
Was science even a real concern for the IPCC? In January, the Sunday Times of London reported that, based in large part on the fraudulent glacier story, "[IPCC Chairman] Rajendra Pachauri's Energy and Resources Institute, based in New Delhi, was awarded up to 310,000 pounds by the Carnegie Corp. . . . and the lion's share of a 2.5 million pound EU grant funded by European taxpayers."
Thus, the Times concluded, "EU taxpayers are funding research into a scientific claim about glaciers that any ice researcher should immediately recognize as bogus."
All this comes on top of last year's revelation of the "Climategate" e-mails, which revealed equally shoddy practices (and efforts to suppress criticism) by scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia -- perhaps the single most important source of data that supposedly proved the most alarming claims of global warming.
Al Gore and many other warming alarmists have insisted that "the debate is over" -- that the science was "settled." That claim is now in shreds -- though the grants are still flowing, and advocates still hope Congress will pass some version of the economically ruinous "cap and trade" anti-warming bill.
What does the best evidence now tell us? That man-made global warming is a mere hypothesis that has been inflated by both exaggeration and downright malfeasance, fueled by the awarding of fat grants and salaries to any scientist who'll produce the "right" results.
The warming "scientific" community, the Climategate emails reveal, is a tight clique of like-minded scientists and bureaucrats who give each other jobs, publish each other's papers -- and conspire to shut out any point of view that threatens to derail their gravy train.
Such behavior is perhaps to be expected from politicians and government functionaries. From scientists, it's a travesty.
這種行為或許可被的政治家和政府工作人員預料，但從科學家，這是一個嘲弄。
In the end, grievous harm will have been done not just to individual scientists' reputations, but to the once-sterling reputation of science itself. For that, we will all suffer.
最終，令人悲痛的傷害將已被做成，不只是對個別科學家的聲譽，但亦是對一度優秀的科學本身的聲譽。為此，我們都將受到影響。
Matt Patterson is editor of Green Watch, a publication of the Capital Research Center .
馬特帕特森是綠色觀察編輯，一份資本研究中心的出版物。
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/meltdown_of_the_climate_consensus_G0kWdclUvwhVr6DYH6A4uJ
氣候變遷懷疑論者改口談抗暖化(法新社)2010年9月5日 星期日 13:35
（法新社哥本哈根5日電） 在氣候變遷辯論中，幾年來一直拒絕環保人士「危言聳聽預言」的隆伯格（Bjoern Lomborg），竟在新書強調應投資數千億美元 來對抗全球暖化 。
在「聰明解決氣候變遷」（Smart Solutions to Climage Change，暫譯）一書中，隆伯格不僅抨擊當今遏制溫室氣體排放的政策，也強調有必要每年花費1000億美元進行情報研究和綠能科技。
隆伯格堅持說，透過聰明的花費數十億美元，世界各地基本上可在本世紀末解決氣候變遷的問題。隆伯格編輯的這本書，含28名經濟學家，包括3位諾貝爾得主的提案。
這對這位自稱是多疑環保人士、且先前表示，只要世界仍有貧窮和飢荒這類問題，減少溫室氣體排放就不該列為優先要務的人來說，似乎是180度的大轉變。
但是這位一頭金髮、帶著孩子氣笑容、現年45歲的丹麥人堅持說，他並沒有改變立場。
他告訴法新社：「我現在說的跟以前一樣：氣候問題是一個真實且重要的人為問題，但是把這個問題處理得一團糟。」
隆伯格堅稱，他從未反對打擊氣候變遷，但反對的是關注面很狹隘，又欠缺效果的降低二氧化碳排放計畫。
與其把重心放在減少碳排放量，世界各國應「投資在綠能科技的研究和發展上，目的在把它們價格壓低且人人都買得到，由此替換（造成污染的）石化燃料」。
隆伯格表示，地球污染問題的解答，在於找出創新且有效的解決方案，例如他新書中大部分經濟學家所支持的碳稅，徵收金額應「符合（碳排放）在氣候造成的傷害：每噸CO2收5歐元」。
如此一來，他宣稱，「全球將籌得2500億元，足以融資研究發展新科技，並解決世界其他問題，譬如飢荒、貧窮和第三世界疾病」。（譯者：中央社賴秀如）
http://hk.news.yahoo.com/article/100905/8/k240.html
聯合國委員會捍衛氣候變化證據
氣候變化委員會依據宣稱來自學生的論文和雜誌文章
川普：戈爾'應被遞奪諾貝爾和平獎
Inhofe：戈爾、全球變暖危言聳聽者在氣候門後找地方匿
R.I.P.：戈爾的芝加哥氣候交易所已死
芝加哥氣候交易所的大崩潰
氣候變化謊言被暴露
恐懼全球變暖的人急劇下降 氣候門醜聞後
白宮一夜之間解決全球變暖問題 ...透過正式改變字眼為'全球氣候瓦解'
沒有留言:
發佈留言