Bemærkelsesværdige citater.....

"At diskutere, om vi har en glogal opvarmning, og om det er noget, vi mennesker har indflydelse på, er som at diskutere, om hiv-virus kan give aids eller ej."

Bjørn Lomborg, statiskiker og miljø-debattør, om hvorvidt mennesket har indflydelse på den globale opvarmning eller ej, til Jyllands-Posten

"With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? It sure sounds like it."

msraaschou skrev:
"We are talking about changing the profile of risk, not
waiting for absolute truth – because absolute truth
will not happen until the earth performs the experiment
of telling us what we are doing, and by then it is too late
to stop it."

Professor Stephen H. Schneider, klimatolog ved Stanford University

"Human beings are now carrying out a large scale geophysical experiment of a kind that could not have happened in the past nor be reproduced in the future."

"So there we have it. There seems little doubt this recent rise, this steep rise in temperature is down to human activity. We ourselves have become a force of nature. We are changing the climate and what happens next really is up to us."

"How could I look my grandchildren in the eye and say I knew about this and I did nothing?"

" the only problem that actually has the potential to end the way our civilization works...The biggest challenge for all of us is to do something about global warming. Too many people don't take it seriously"

Det er en super rapport. Den fortæller os, at der er et problem, og at det er menneskeskabt. Men problemet er mindre alvorligt, end det blev antaget i den sidste rapport. Det er ikke en civilationskrise, men et problem på linje med alle andre. Og rapporten er et klart modspil til de mange skræmmehistorier.

Forskere, som tager udfordringen op, skal dog være modige.

FN's klimapanel består af 2.500 uafhængige forskere fra 130 lande, og deres rapporter, som kommer hvert fjerde år, anses som det tætteste, vi kommer på sandheden om Jordens klima.

Når vi nu er i videnskabens verden er det god skik, at når der fremstilles nye teorier, så er den positive tilgang at gøre alt hvad man kan for at modbevise den. I videnskabensverden er det helt naturligt "at mene noget andet". Det ses der positivt på. Bølgegangen kan stadig være høj af den grund i de enkelte debater.

And the snows of Kilimanjaro are vanishing not because summit temperature is rising (it isn't) but because post-colonial deforestation has dried the air. Al Gore please note.

micheelsen skrev:
Historisk er det ikke sjældent at det er den sværrere teori, der stemmer bedst med virkeligheden men den mest konkrete og lette budskab, der vinder i popularitet. Lette budskaber spredes lettere.

micheelsen skrev:
http://politiken.dk/videnskab/article237388.ece

Forskere, som tager udfordringen op, skal dog være modige.

FN's klimapanel består af 2.500 uafhængige forskere fra 130 lande, og deres rapporter, som kommer hvert fjerde år, anses som det tætteste, vi kommer på sandheden om Jordens klima.

I dag sætter man sit navn på spil, hvis man som forsker går imod IPCC. Går man imod IPCC er man i lommen på olieinteressenter. Hvad er farligst? CO2 eller IPCC som en kirkelig bevægelse?

Nogen der kan huske Eco Umberto's "I rosens navn" - klimadebatten begynder at have mange af de samme undertoner.

"We should aim at the 450 ppm target. Whether we can get to it is another question. In practice I don't think we can stabilize at two degrees. It is going to take a major change in the way we generate and use electricity to even stabilize between two and three degrees. The time for action is now.

Three degrees we can do. For two degrees it is too late, but 550 ppm is a nasty place to be."

Our climate is changing. The changes we are observing now are only a prelude of what science tells us to expect as temperatures increase further.

The EU's objective is to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Beyond this threshold, the risk of irreversible large scale events increases dramatically. The window of opportunity for meeting this objective is however closing fast, we cannot afford to delay action.

On 10 January the Commission put forward a set of concrete proposals to ensure that the 2 degrees objective can be met. We demonstrate that worldwide greenhouse gas emissions need to peak around 2020 and then fall by as much as 50% by 2050 compared to 1990 levels if we are to reach the 2 degree objective. Such ambitions can only be achieved through global action.

"Jeg vil godt tilade mig at sige at det er fuldstændigt sikkert at temperaturen stiger som følge den tiltagende drivhuseffekt. Det er en fuldstændig fundemental proces i hele vores jordsystem det er sådan at den vil stige. Det der drejer sig om netop det er at får beregnet præcist hvor meget den vil stige.

Efterhånden som modellerne bliver mere og mere nøjagtige, og man kan tjek dem af på mange måder, så vi er mere og mere sikker på at det der omkring de 3 grader det er nok det bedste gæt på det der vil ske indenfor 100 år.

Men altså det afhænger af stadigvæk ret meget af hvordan vi opføre os, fordi det kan godt gør at man kan får den ned til under 2 (grader), måske kan det ske at vi ryger over de 4 (grader) afhængig af det."

So, over the next two years, I'm looking forward to major progress on key issues, such as 'How are the ice sheets responding?' and the trillion dollar question from the point of view of sea-level rise, 'How much, how quickly?'

Parts of the ice sheets are responding to warming rather more quickly than glaciologists had thought. In parts of the Antarctic, there's been a significant and sustained acceleration. The trouble is we've never seen a major ice sheet collapse before.

There was little ice at the North Pole: a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round the Arctic in 1421 and found none

According to Villalba (1990, 1994), and Soon & Baliunas (2003), the mediaeval warm period was
warmer than the current warm period by up to 3C. From c.1000 AD, ships were recorded as having
sailed in parts of the Arctic where there is a permanent ice-pack now (Thompson et al. 2000; Briffa
2000; Lamb 1972a, b; Villalba 1990, 1994).
In 1421 a Chinese Imperial Navy squadron sailed right round the Arctic and found no ice anywhere. It
is possible that at that time there was less of an icecap at the North Pole than there is now, particularly
in summer. Yet the polar bears survived. Though there has been much discussion of the supposed threat
posed by the warmer Arctic, the polar bears are thriving in the current warm period. Eleven of the
thirteen principal known families are prospering as never before.
Greenland in the Middle Ages: Eric the Red had named Greenland "Greenland" to encourage Danish
settlers, because in his time south-western Greenland was indeed green. It was ice-free, and was
extensively cultivated until c.1425 AD, when the farms were suddenly overrun by permafrost.
The Viking agricultural settlements remain under permafrost to this day – a powerful indication that the
Middle Ages were warmer than the present, and that there is little cause for alarm at the current melting
of Greenland glaciers because they are very likely to have melted to more than their present extent
during the mediaeval warm period.

NEXUS is an international bi-monthly alternative news magazine, covering the fields of: Health Alternatives; Suppressed Science; Earth's Ancient Past; UFOs & the Unexplained; and Government Cover-Ups

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film:

"Temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?" - Roy Spencer wrote in a May 25, 2006 column

micheelsen skrev:
Hvad angår energi mener jeg vi skal arbejde efter helt nye muligheder. HELT nye. Det vi har i dag er kun en overgangsfase og den kommer snart til en ende til fordel for os alle.

De venligste

The majority of the UN's work still focuses on preventing and ending conflict. But the danger posed by war to all of humanity — and to our planet — is at least matched by the climate crisis and global warming.

Although the global weather system is extremely complex and not wholly understood, experts say that such a rapid change in temperature is bound to have severe implications for future weather and climate patterns.

Filosoffen skrev:

Although the global weather system is extremely complex and not wholly understood, experts say that such a rapid change in temperature is bound to have severe implications for future weather and climate patterns.

Imponerende:
"Selv om eksperterne ikke helt forstår vejrsystemet, påstår de alligevel..."

Det er da skønt med synske eksperter!

I think most of the people here wonder when society wakes up to the data that's in front of us...I consider this data very serious and that there is climate change happening and that we need to be concerned about it... I'd say the major force involved in these changes is human-induced climate change, global warming.

We are going into a realm the Earth has not seen for a very long time ... over the past 800,000 years

We are talking about a potentially catastrophic set of developments

A decade ago, climate impacts were largely hypothetical. That's no longer a question.

We can't be that stupid!!

Det er fint med CO2-skatter, men vi skal bare ikke bilde os ind, at vi så har løst problemet. På langt sigt får vi kun gjort noget ved den globale opvarming, hvis vi kan finde nye teknologier, der begrænser vores afhængighed af de fossile brændstoffer, og giver os nogle billige alternativer. Ellers får lande som Kina og Indien aldrig råd til at være med, og så nytter det altså ikke særlig meget, at for eksempel EU-landene reducerer deres CO2-forbrug med 20 procent

Rapporten bekræfter, at klimaforandringer er en kendsgerning....Derfor må vi handle hurtigt og beslutsomt for at begrænse temperaturstigningerne og mindske udslippet af CO2.