Listă de cercetători care se opun evaluării științifice privind încălzirea globală

De la Wikipedia, enciclopedia liberă
Salt la: Navigare, căutare

Aceasta este o listă de oameni de știință notabili care au făcut declarații care intră în conflict cu înțelegerea științifică mainstream privind încălzirea globală așa cum este prezentată de Grupul interguvernamental de experți în evoluția climei (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change sau IPCC) și care este aprobată de către alte organisme științifice. Grupul interguvernamental de experți în evoluția climei (engleză Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) afirmă că „cea mai mare parte a creșterii temperaturii medii în a doua jumătatea a secolului al XX-lea se datorează probabil creșterii concentrației gazelor cu efect de seră, de proveniență antropică. Ei consideră că fenomenele naturale ca variațiile solare și vulcanismul au avut un mic efect de încălzire până în anii 1950, dar după efectul a fost de ușoară răcire.

Oameni de știință care pun la îndoială acuratețea previziunilor climatice IPCC[modificare | modificare sursă]

Oameni de știință care susțin că încălzirea globală este cauzată în primul rând de procese naturale[modificare | modificare sursă]

Oameni de știință care susțin că încălzirea globală are cauze necunoscute[modificare | modificare sursă]

Oameni de știință care susțin că încălzirea globala va avea puține consecințe negative[modificare | modificare sursă]

Vezi și[modificare | modificare sursă]

Note[modificare | modificare sursă]

  1. ^ „Russian academic says CO2 not to blame for global warming”. Russian International News Agency. . Accesat în . Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases [...], but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and [...] growth in its intensity. 
  2. ^ Baliunas, Sallie (). „Warming Up to the Truth”. The Heritage Foundation. Accesat în . 
  3. ^ Baliunas, Sallie (). „Global Warming Science vs. Computer Model Speculation: Just Ask the Experts”. Capitalism Magazine. Accesat în . [T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air.  Citare cu parametru depășit |coauthors= (help)
  4. ^ Ian Clark (). „Letter to the editor of The Hill Times”. National Resources Stewardship Project. Arhivat din original la . Accesat în . We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle. 
  5. ^ Chris de Freitas (). „Chris de Freitas: Evidence must prevail” (PDF). The New Zealand Herald. Arhivat din original (PDF) la . Accesat în . To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing [global warming], the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done. 
  6. ^ Phillip V Brennan (). „New Study Explodes Human-Global Warming Story”. Newsmax.com. Arhivat din original la . Accesat în . [...]observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming. 
  7. ^ Easterbrook, Don (). „THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING AND PREDICTIONS FOR THE COMING CENTURY”. Philadelphia Annual Meeting. Accesat în . Because the warming periods in these oscillations [of glaciers] occurred well before atmospheric CO2 began to rise rapidly in the 1940s, they could not have been caused by increased atmospheric CO2, and global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon[...] 
  8. ^ Achenbach, Joel (). „The Tempest”. The Washington Post. Washington DC: WPC. ISSN 0190-8286. Accesat în . I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people. 
  9. ^ Raymond Brusca (). „Professor denies global warming theory”. [Global warming] probably has little to do with carbon dioxide, just like past warmings had little to do with carbon dioxide 
  10. ^ William Kininmonth, Climate Change: A Natural Hazard (PDF), arhivat din original (PDF) la , accesat în , Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences. 
  11. ^ Legates, David (). „Climate Science: Climate Change and Its Impacts”. en:National Center for Policy Analysis. Accesat în . About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming.  Text " NCPA" ignorat (help)
  12. ^ Robinson, Cindy (). Global warning? Controversy heats up in the scientific community”. Carleton University Magazine. Accesat în . There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. 
  13. ^ Tom, Harris (). „Global warming, Scientists, Al Gore climate change”. Canada Free Press. Accesat în . There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. 
  14. ^ Patterson, Timothy (). „Read the Sunspots”. Financial Post. 
  15. ^ „Wild weather ignites climate change debate”. Australian Broadcasting Company - Lateline. Aug 2002 (US). Accesat în 31 August 2012. Natural climate changes occur unrelated to carbon dioxide contents.  Verificați datele pentru: |date= (help)
  16. ^ „I cambi climatici e le loro cause, una discussione su alcuni punti chiave (Climate Change and Its Causes, A Discussion About Some Key Issues)” (PDF). La Chimica e l'Industria. . pp. 70–75. Accesat în . At least 60% of the warming of the Earth observed since 1970 appears to be induced by natural cycles which are present in the solar system. A climatic stabilization or cooling until 2030–2040 is forecast by the phenomenological model. 
  17. ^ „Scafetta webpage”. 
  18. ^ Segalstad, Tom. „What is [[:Format:Co2]] – friend or foe?” (PDF). Accesat în . The IPCC's temperature curve (the so-called 'hockey stick' curve) must be in error [...] All measurements of solar luminosity and 14C isotopes show that there is at present an increasing solar radiation which gives a warmer climate  Conflict URL–wikilink (help)
  19. ^ Singer, S. Fred (). 'Flat Earth Award' nominee's challenge to Chicken Littles”. Christian Science Monitor. The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect. 
  20. ^ „The Denial Machine”. 
  21. ^ „Google Video Link”. CBC's Denial machine @ 19:23. It's not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists. 
  22. ^ William J Cromie (). „Global warming is not so hot: 1003 was worse, researchers find”. Harvard University Gazette. Accesat în . there's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions [...] may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. 
  23. ^ „Testimony of Roy W. Spencer”. before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. . Accesat în . I predict that [scientists will realise] most of the climate change we have observed is natural, and that mankind’s role is relatively minor 
  24. ^ Svensmark, Henrik (). „Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges” (PDF). Astronomy & Geophysics. 48 (1}): 18–24. Accesat în . The case for anthropogenic climate change during the 20th century rests primarily on the fact that concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases increased and so did global temperatures. Attempts to show that certain details in the climatic record confirm the greenhouse forcing (e.g. Mitchell et al. 2001) have been less than conclusive. By contrast, the hypothesis that changes in cloudiness obedient to cosmic rays help to force climate change predicts a distinctive signal that is in fact very easily observed, as an exception that proves the rule. 
  25. ^ „Celestial Climate Driver: A Perspective from Four Billion Years of the Carbon Cycle”. Geoscience Canada. 1. 32. . Accesat în . At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model that advocates the leading role of greenhouse gases, particularly of CO2, and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. The two scenarios are likely not even mutually exclusive, but a prioritization may result in different relative impact. Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge.  |first1= lipsă |last1= în Authors list (help)

Legături externe[modificare | modificare sursă]