全球十六位科学家联合撰文质疑全球变暖说 以下这篇文章由文末所列的16位科学家共同署名： 如何应对“全球气候变暖”或许是当代任何一个民主国家的政治候选人都必须考虑的问题。有这样一种被人反复提及的说法：几乎所有科学家都要求采取强有力的措施，阻止全球变暖。但政治候选人应该了解，这种说法是不符合实际情况的。事实上，许多著名科学家和工程师认为没有必要为抑制全球变暖而大动干戈，而且持这种观点的人数还在不断增加。 去年9月份，诺贝尔奖得主、物理学家伊瓦尔·贾埃弗(Ivar Giaever)发表了一封公开信，宣布退出美国物理学会(American Physical Society)，贾埃弗在上次大选中是奥巴马(Obama)总统的支持者。信的开头这样写道：“我没有延续（我的会员资格），因为（美国物理学会政策）声明中的一些说法我不敢苟同。 美国物理学会称：‘无可辩驳的证据表明，全球变暖正在发生。如果不采取行动缓和这一趋势，地球的物理和生态系统、社会体系、安全和人类健康可能会严重受损。我们必须从现在开始减少温室气体排放。’ 美国物理学会可以讨论质子的质量是否会逐渐变化，也可以讨论多重宇宙如何运行，但全球变暖的证据果真是无可辩驳的吗？” 几十年来，国际上一直在大力宣传所谓二氧化碳“污染物”数量增加将摧毁人类文明的说法，但也有一大批科学家（其中许多是非常杰出的科学家）认同贾埃弗的观点。这些科学“异端人士”的数量也在逐年增加。其原因在于一系列不可动摇的科学事实。 对气候变暖论挑战最大的事实也许是，迄今为止全球气候已有十多年未呈变暖趋势了。气候变暖论者对此是了解的，正如 2009年“气候门”(Climategate)事件中气候科学家凯文·特伦伯斯(Kevin Trenberth )在电子邮件中所述：“事实上，我们现在无法解释为什么没有出现变暖现象，这无疑是一种讽刺。”不过，只有在人们相信那些计算机模型（在这些模型中，所谓的包括水汽和云在内的反馈机制会大幅放大二氧化碳微弱的影响）的前提下，才可以说气候没有如期变暖。 十多年来全球气候并没有变暖，这暗示计算机模型显著夸大了二氧化碳增加对气候变暖的影响。实际上，联合国政府间气候变化专门委员会(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)发布相关预测22年以来，气候变暖的程度一直小于预期。面对这种尴尬，宣 扬气候变暖威胁论者将矛头从气候变暖转向了极端气候，以期将千变万化的气候中出现的所有异常都归咎于二氧化碳。 其实二氧化碳并不是污染物。二氧化碳是一种无色、无味的气体，我们每个人都会呼出高浓度二氧化碳，它是生物圈生命循环系统的关键要素。二氧化碳的增加会大大促进植物生长，所以温室管理者为了让作物长得更好，常常将二氧化碳浓度增加三四倍。这并不奇怪，因为植物和动物是在二氧化碳浓度相当于现在10倍左右时进化形成的。在作物品种增加、化学肥料技术及农业管理水平提高等因素的带动下，过去一个世纪以来农业产量大幅增加，但几乎可以肯定的是，大气中二氧化碳增加是促进农业增产的原因之一。 尽管有越来越多的科学家公开质疑气候变暖说，但许多年轻科学家私下里表示，尽管他们对全球变暖说深表怀疑，却不敢说出来，因为担心这会使他们升迁受阻，甚至发生更糟糕的事情。他们的担忧不无道理。 2003年，学术期刊《气候研究》(Climate Research)的编辑克里斯·德弗赖塔斯(Chris de Freitas)博士大胆刊登了一篇不符合政治导向（但符合事实）的同行评审文章，文章结论是，如果以过去一千年的气候变化为背景，那么近期气候变暖并非异常现象。国际上的全球变暖论者很快针对德弗赖塔斯博士发起蓄意攻击，要求撤销他的编辑职位和大学教职。所幸德弗赖塔斯博士保住了他的大学教职 。 科学研究本不应该如此，但历史上我们有过先例──比如在特罗菲姆·李森科(Trofim Lysenko)操纵苏联生物学的恐怖年代。宣称信奉基因遗传学（李森科将基因学说斥为资产阶级伪科学）的苏联生物学家被解除工作职务。许多人被送入劳改营，一些人甚至被处以极刑。 为什么人们对全球变暖如此热衷？为什么这个问题会如此触动美国物理学会的神经？许多会员要求美国物理学会（贾埃弗已于数月前宣布退出） 不再用“无可辩驳”一词描述科学问题，他们的要求应该说是合情合理的，却遭到美国物理学会拒绝。原因有好几个，但首先要从“何人得益？”这个老问题谈起。用现代语言来说就是“跟着钱走。” 气候变暖威胁论让许多人捞到大量好处，它使 政府资金流入相关学术研究项目，成为政府扩大官僚机器的理由。这种论调是政府增加税收，让纳税人为企业补贴（这些公司深谙操纵政治体系之道）埋单的借口，还是吸引巨额捐款流入许诺拯救地球的慈善基金的诱饵 。李森科之流日子过得非常好，他们处心积虑地捍卫着自己的信条及其带来的特权。 我们要代表许多对气候科学做过认真和独立研究的科学家和工程师，对所有政治候选人说： 采取激烈行动为世界经济“脱碳”并无令人信服的科学依据 。即便认同政府间气候变化专门委员会夸大的气候预期，采取激烈的温室气体控制政策也是不经济的。 耶鲁大学经济学家威廉·诺德豪斯(William Nordhaus)近期对多种政策方案进行的研究显示，效益成本比率接近最高的是一项允许经济增长在超过50年的时间里不受温室气体排放控制措施影响的政策。这种政策为世界欠发达国家带来的好处尤其大，这些国家也希望分享一些发达国家在物质财富、健康和期望寿命等方面的优势。而许多其他政策应对方案的投资收益则为负。此外，二 氧化碳的增加及其可能导致的小幅升温将使地球整体受益 。 如果当选政治领导人觉得必须在气候方面“做些什么”的话，我们建议他们去支持那些增进人类对气候了解的出色科学家。这些科学家们通过精心设计的卫星、海洋和陆地仪器，通过对观察数据的分析来研究气候。我们越了解气候，就越能更好地应对瞬息万变、古往今来困扰人类生活的自然界。当前私人和政府在气候方面投入巨额资金，但其中很大一部分投资有无必要很值得怀疑。 每个政治候选人都应该支持保护及改善环境的合理措施，但有一些耗资不菲的项目纯属浪费资源，依据的是耸人听闻却站不住脚的“无可辩驳的”证据，支持这样一些项目毫无意义 。 克洛德·阿莱格尔(Claude Allegre)，巴黎大学(University of Paris)地球科学学院(Institute for the Study of the Earth)前院长；J·斯科特·阿姆斯特朗(J. Scott Armstrong)，《预测学期刊》(Journal of Forecasting)及《国际预测学期刊》(International Journal of Forecasting)联合创办人；简·布雷斯洛(Jan Breslow)，洛克菲勒大学(Rockefeller University)生化遗传学和新陈代谢实验室(Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism)负责人；罗杰·科恩(Roger Cohen)，美国物理学会(American Physical Society)会员；爱德华·大卫(Edward David)，美国国家工程院(National Academy of Engineering)和美国国家科学院(National Academy of Sciences)会员；威廉·哈珀(William Happer)，普林斯顿大学(Princeton)物理学教授；迈克尔·凯利(Michael Kelly)，英国剑桥大学(University of Cambridge)工科教授；威廉·基宁蒙斯(William Kininmonth)，澳大利亚气象局(Australian Bureau of Meteorology)前气候研究主管；理查德·林德森(Richard Lindzen)，麻省理工(MIT)大气科学教授；詹姆斯·麦格雷斯(James McGrath), 弗吉尼亚理工大学(Virginia Technical University)化学教授；罗德尼·尼科尔斯(Rodney Nichols)，纽约科学院(New York Academy of Sciences)前总裁兼首席执行长；伯特·鲁坦(Burt Rutan)，宇航工程师，“航海家号”(Voyager) 及“宇宙飞船一号”(SpaceShipOne)设计师；哈里森·H·施密特(Harrison H. Schmitt)，“阿波罗17号”(Apollo 17)宇航员、美国前参议员；尼尔·沙维夫(Nir Shaviv)，耶路撒冷希伯来大学(Hebrew University)天体物理学教授；亨克·滕内克斯(Henk Tennekes)，荷兰皇家气象服务中心(Royal Dutch Meteorological Service)前主任；安东尼奥·齐基基(Antonio Zichichi)，日内瓦全球科学家联盟(World Federation of Scientists)主席。 No Need to Panic About Global Warming There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy. Editor's Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article: A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed. In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew because I cannot live with the statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?" In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts. Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2. The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2. The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere. Enlarge Image Corbis Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job. This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death. Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question "cui bono?" Or the modern update, "Follow the money." Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them. Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically. Princeton physics professor William Happer on why a large number of scientists don't believe that carbon dioxide is causing global warming. A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet. If elected officials feel compelled to "do something" about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review. Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence. Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.
标签: 联合
![[转载]全球十六位科学家联合撰文质疑全球变暖说](http://image.sciencenet.cn/album/201202/17/071630kkrsarzzrvvsbv5e.jpg.thumb.jpg)
