Bemærkelsesværdige citater.....

"Miljøutfordringene er den største og viktigste enkeltsaken verdenssamfunnet står overfor i dag...If we do not get the climate under control, if we do not confront the challenges of the environment, then everything else may be washed aside...The environment is going to write the manuscript on how we proceed around the world, otherwise it will take away the future of our children...De som bærer det største ansvaret for klimautslippene, bør bidra mest...people are beginning to understand. And when they understand, politicians will have the courage to act."

Although solar activity has an effect on the climate, these changes are small compared to those associated with global warming. Any global cooling associated with a fall in solar activity would not significantly affect the global warming caused by greenhouse gases.

This is of course a controversial issue and there is a vocal lobby arguing against the link between anthropogenic gas emissions and climatic change. However I share the view of the majority of the scientific community that the evidence for such a link and thus the occurrence of man-made global warming is significant and a matter of grave concern.

The curves diverge after 1980, and it's a startlingly large deviation. Something else is acting on the climate.... It has the fingerprints of the greenhouse effect.

There's a huge gap between what is understood about global warming by the relevant scientific community and what is known about global warming by those who need to know: the public and policy-makers.

We've had, in the past thirty years, one degree Fahrenheit of global warming. But there's another one degree Fahrenheit in the pipeline due to gases that are already in the atmosphere. And there's another one degree Fahrenheit in the pipeline because of the energy infrastructure now in place--for example, power plants and vehicles that we're not going to take off the road even if we decide that we're going to address this problem.

.....The final recommendation concerns how we have gotten into this situation in which there is a gap between what the relevant scientific community understands and what the public and policy-makers know.

A fundamental premise of democracy is that the public is informed and that they're honestly informed....The global warming problem has brought into focus an overall problem: the pervasive influence of special interests on the functioning of our government and on communications with the public.

...what is understood about global warming by the relevant scientific community...

We've had, in the past thirty years, one degree Fahrenheit of global warming.

Jeg gruer mere for, hvad politikerne i ren og skær panik måtte finde på

...we can say the problem lies between certain limits, and we explain that. Now, those who want to put over a particular political view, or a particular vested interest view, will tend to concentrate on the bottom end, or even below the bottom end, of what might occur. There are those, of course, on the other hand, people who work for green organisations, quite often, who will try to say we have not emphasised the uncertainty anything like enough, and it may well be that there could be almost calamitous events; they talk of Armageddons, and things of this kind, in order to try to put over a much more damaging view of what might occur. What we try to do, in the IPCC, is to put over a balanced view, given the nature of the science, given the uncertainties which are involved, and given our total understanding of it.

The 2% change in low cloud during a solar cycle...will vary the input of heat to the Earth's surface by an average of about 1.2 W m 2, which is not trivial. It can be compared, for example, with 1.4 W m 2 attributed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for the greenhouse effect of all of the additional carbon dioxide in the air since the Industrial Revolution

Here is prima facie evidence for suspecting that much of the warming of the world during the 20th century was due to a reduction in cosmic rays and in low-cloud cover

I hope they're a success. But why is he actually organising them? To make us aware of the greenhouse effect? Everybody's known about that problem for years. We are all fucking conscious of global warming.

A recommendation for future Committees of this type is that,

Future assessment Committees need to appoint members with a diversity of views and who do not have a significant conflict of interest with respect to their own work. Such Committees should be chaired by individuals committed to the presentation of a diversity of perspectives and unwilling to engage in strong-arm tactics to enforce a narrow perspective. Any such committee should be charged with summarizing all relevant literature, even if inconvenient, or which presents a view not held by certain members of the Committee.

Assessment Committees should not be an opportunity for members to highlight their own research and that which supports their personal scientific conclusions without properly placing into perspective the diversity found in the peer literature. When the Chair of such a committee seeks to limit the focus of an assessment Report in a specific direction, such as was the case with this Committee, the advancement of our understanding of the scientific issues involved suffers.

Climate change is measurable and is happening at rate that is almost unprecedented from what we know in previous history, and the implications for biodiversity are there for all to see....Could the great apes go because of climate change? Yes. Possibly not within our lifetime, but what about in 100 or 200 years?

I have no doubt that a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change. I guess I would ask which human beings - where and when - are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.

Convincing scientific evidence....that human activity and primarily greenhouse gas emissions are behind the observed moderate warming do not exist.

Isn't any goal and every goal that reaches 50 years into the future a mere gesture that doesn't cost anything which is why politicians can make it so easily? Isn't it a mere politically correct, cynical game with the public?

Vi stå ved en tidligere minister og en minister [Auken og Hedegaard] der fortæller os at vi kan gennemføre en plan, helst til København i 2009, der er uendelig meget mere ambitiøse end den plan som vi ikke kunne gennemføre de sidste 10 år. Det er måske en lille smulle urealistisk...

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people, we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

rick_uk skrev:
Vaclav Klaus, Czech president, June 9th, 2007:

Convincing scientific evidence....that human activity and primarily greenhouse gas emissions are behind the observed moderate warming do not exist.

Hvilken planet bor han på?

...med den slags randbemærkninger som ikke er særligt konstruktive og kun er skrevet for at nedgøre pågældendes mening og personlighed opnår du hos mig kun et medlidende suk

...at det bla. var et 'responsum' fra samme (anløbne?) kant, der motiverede UVVU...

So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.

I WWF forholder vi os til, at FN's klimapanel vurderer, at solpletter kun har ringe indflydelse på klimaet. Til tider virker de danske medier helt ude af trit med både den videnskabelige og politiske virkelighed. I andre lande er klimadebatten kommet langt videre. Det er en anelse trættende, at vi skal tage den her tur en gang hvert halve år.

..vi har påvist, at de nuværende klimamodeller ikke slår til, fordi ændringerne sker så brat. Og ikke glidende som i klimamodellerne. Vi har fundet 52 bratte klimaændringer i vores iskerner. De menneskelige udledninger af CO2 kommer oveni som en uberegnelig størrelse. Aldrig i en million år har vi haft så højt et indhold af drivhusgasser i atmosfæren. Det viser iskerneboringer ved Antarktis. Der er kommet en helt ny faktor ind i klimaet. Jeg misunder ikke de folk, som laver modellerne. Det er hundesvært...

Måske er de klimaændringer, vi har målt de seneste 100 år, bare en lille krølle. Måske er klimaet ved at gå i bakgear. Hvad der sker, ved jeg faneme ikke! Måske er vi ved at sætte en kædereaktion i gang, som får det hele til at løbe amok. Jeg ved det ikke. Mit svar er lige så godt som taxachaufførens. Jeg kan bare se, hvad der er sket i fortiden.

I WWF forholder vi os til, at FN's klimapanel vurderer, at solpletter kun har ringe indflydelse på klimaet. Til tider virker de danske medier helt ude af trit med både den videnskabelige og politiske virkelighed. I andre lande er klimadebatten kommet langt videre. Det er en anelse trættende, at vi skal tage den her tur en gang hvert halve år.

Boe Carslund-Sørensen skrev:
WWF skulle hellere glæde sig over det faktum, at danskerne er en befolkning af skeptikere

Min personlige holdning til klima, klimaændringer er, at vi intet kan stille op. Historien har gang på gang bevist, at når mennesket griber ind i jordens naturlige balance og bevidst forsørger at rette op på tidligere tiders fejltagelser forværrer vi mere end vi gavner.

Det kan kræve mod at være politisk korrekt

Det er da en underlig laissez-faire holdning. Hvad med ozonlaget f.eks.? Har vi ikke kunnet rette op på tidligere tiders fejltagelser dér?

Sverige ramt af sne i juli
30-07-07: 12:06 | af: pmol
Vemdalen i Midtsverige blev i går ved middagstid udsat for snefald, skriver norske Nettavisen.
Et øjenvidne, Jonas Lövnord, tog bil­leder af sneen, der blev liggende og klædte området i hvidt for en stund.
Temperaturen i området var nede på fem grader, og det var nok til at sneen kunne falde uden at smelte på vej ned. Det er første gang der meldes om sne så tidligt i området.
Sveriges mete­orologiske institut bekræfter, at der var tale om snefald.

There's every reason to believe in the possibility...A lot will hinge on essentially what happens in the United States, and there we have every reason to believe that the position of he United States over the next few years will not be the same as it was...