2010年6月7日月曜日

温暖化疑惑論争

温暖化疑惑論争は続いている。
クライメートゲート事件の調査のため、複数の調査委員会が設けられ、

英議会の委員会や、大学が設けた独立の委員会の一つはすでに報告を
まとめ、いずれも、不正行為やデータ操作はなかったと結論付けた。

米国では、ヴァージニア州司法長官がヴァージニア大学が現ペンシルバニア
州立大学のMann博士の詐欺行為への資金提供を行ったとして、裁判の準備
を進め、共和党議員は召喚状を支給した。
温暖化推進派の米科学者は、温暖化懐疑論者に対して魔女狩りと批判。

温暖化疑惑に関して、「政治が科学に干渉している」との報道もあるが、
「科学者が、科学を政治にしている」としか思えないこともある。
シロ詐欺の戦いか。

Climategate
Climategate 露愛国大学生関与か
IPCC ヒマラヤ氷河予測誤報で陳謝
IPCCへの反論 温暖化鈍化
IPCC報告書 一部外部調査へ

---環境白書 実効ある温暖化防止策を---
2010年6月2日
http://ryukyushimpo.jp/news/storyid-162956-storytopic-11.html

 政府が1日に閣議決定した2010年版「環境・循環型社会・生物多様性白書」(環境白書)は、20年の温室効果ガス排出量を1990年比で25%削減する目標の実現に向け、政策を総動員して取り組む決意を盛り込んだ。
 今の世代の責任を果たす「チャレンジ25」を提唱し、地球温暖化対策基本法の制定などを施策の柱に挙げている。だが基本法案は25%削減の前提条件として、主要国が排出量削減で意欲的な目標を設定した場合と規定しており、「他国任せ」そのものだ。
 さらに、企業の温室効果ガス総排出量の上限設定について、排出総量を規制する方式を基本としつつ、生産量当たりの排出量に上限を定める方式も「検討を行う」と付記した。それだと、生産量が増加すれば排出量も増える恐れがあり、実効性に疑問が残る。
 経済産業省や一部産業界に加え、民主党の支持母体である連合などの要求を受け入れた結果だ。
 民主党は昨年の衆院選で「キャップ&トレード方式による実効ある国内排出量取引市場を創設する」とマニフェスト(政権公約)に明記した。
 キャップ&トレード方式は、温室効果ガスを排出する個々の企業に排出量の枠を設定し、企業同士で排出枠を売ったり買ったりできる仕組みのことだ。
 国会に提出された地球温暖化対策基本法案は、政権公約に比べるとかなり後退している。「玉虫色」でほとんど骨抜きにされたと言っていい。
 地球温暖化の防止は世界共通の課題であり、先進国である日本が率先して対策を講じる意義は大きい。そのために数値目標を掲げるのも大いに結構だ。
 だが、どんなに立派な目標を掲げたところで実現性が乏しければ「絵に描いたもち」でしかない。
 多くの異論が出たのは、法案を練るに当たって、産業界などと綿密に話し合い、理解を得る作業が不十分だったからにほかならない。
 排出総量の上限を設けるといっても、具体的にどのような基準で数値を設定するのか。企業や業種によって不公平が生じない制度を構築しなければならない。
 温暖化の影響は環境・生態系だけでなく社会、経済、文化など多方面に及ぶ。当該企業はエゴを捨て大局的見地からエコを考えたい。


---排出量取引は最も効果的 米アカデミーが報告書---
2010/05/20 09:24 【共同通信
http://www.47news.jp/CN/201005/CN2010052001000146.html

 【ワシントン共同】排出量取引や環境税は温室効果ガスを減らす最も効果的な方法だとして、米国政府に制度導入を求めた報告書を19日、科学者組織の全米科学アカデミーがまとめた。
 議会の要請に応えて作成したもので、温暖化の現状や米国がとるべき対策をまとめた。
 報告書は「温暖化は現実に起きており、人や自然環境に悪影響を及ぼしている」と強調。米国では、家庭や企業レベルでさまざまな対策が行われいるが、国としての目標や政策が欠けていると指摘した。
 その上で、2012年から50年までの米国の温室効果ガス排出量の合計を1700億~2千億トンにとどめることを提案した。米国は現在、年間約70億トン排出しており、50年までに年間排出量を1990年比で50~80%削減しなければ達成できない量という。
 実現のための戦略として、国レベルの排出量取引や環境税を導入し、企業の排出量削減や温暖化対策の技術開発を加速させることを推奨した。


---社説:温暖化疑惑事件 科学者はもっと発信を---
毎日新聞 2010年5月17日 2時31分
http://mainichi.jp/select/opinion/editorial/news/20100517k0000m070102000c.html

 温暖化をめぐる疑惑が昨年11月から世界をゆさぶっている。これまで、日本ではあまり関心が高まらず、科学者の反応も鈍かった。
 4月末には日本学術会議がこの問題を取り上げる公開討論会を開いたが、参加者が自説を述べるにとどまった。データ操作は否定されているが、放置すれば温暖化対策への不信感にもつながりかねない。今後、科学者集団として、検証や対策を発信していくことが重要ではないか。
 事の発端は英国の大学から大量に流出したメールである。その中に「(気温の)低下を隠す」「トリック」といった言葉があった。送り主は有名な気候科学者で、そのデータは温暖化の根拠として「気候変動に関する政府間パネル(IPCC)」の報告書にも採用されている。このため、「データをゆがめた」と攻撃され、「クライメート(気候)ゲート事件」と呼ばれるようになった。
 複数の調査委員会が設けられ、英議会の委員会や、大学が設けた独立の委員会の一つはすでに報告をまとめている。いずれも、不正行為やデータ操作はなかったと結論付けたが、問題がないわけではない。
 たとえば、気候科学の分野では生のデータや分析用プログラムの元になる情報を公開する習慣がなく、疑惑のきっかけとなった可能性がある。導かれた結論を検証できるよう、今後は公開していく努力が必要だ。気候分析に欠かせない統計学の専門家との共同研究が不足しているとの指摘もあり、改善の余地がある。
 電子メール事件以降、IPCCの報告書には複数の誤りも見つかっている。たとえば「ヒマラヤの氷河は2035年までに消滅する」とあるのは「2350年に5分の1に縮小」の誤りだった。誤った数字を載せた環境団体の資料からの引用で、信頼性のある論文を引用するという原則が満たされていなかった。
 一連の疑惑やミスは、「人間活動による地球の温暖化」という基本的な考えを揺るがすわけではない。科学者にとっては、ささいなことだという見方もあるだろう。しかし、「結論は変わらないのだから」と静観するのは誤りだろう。
 科学者の判断の背景には、専門的な知識やデータがある。一般市民にはその土台がない。特に、地球科学や気候科学は不確実性を内包する科学である。「問題ない」というだけでは納得できない人がいて当然だ。科学者は、その不確かさまで含めて説明し、信頼を得る必要がある。
 地球科学は純粋な科学の営みを超え、国際政治の場に持ち込まれている。科学者集団には、そのことを念頭に置いた上で行動する知恵も覚悟も求められている。


---Witch Hunt for Climate Scientists---
May 30, 2010 at 7:38 am by Catherine Hill
http://blog.timesunion.com/green/witch-hunt-for-climate-scientists/2043/

A debate is currently raging in Virginia over the state’s ability to push a political agenda onto scientific research and it could have a fundamental effect on how research is condicted in this country. Last year much attention was paid to a number of e-mails from climate scientists which led some to believe that the risks of climate change had been overstated. In response, each of the scientists implicated in “Climategate” were investigated by their respective universities, as is the practice in academia, and each have been cleared of wrong-doing (although perhaps not of a lack of good judgement). One of the scientists whose e-mails were posted is a man named Michael Mann, who was a researcher at the University of Virginia.

The Attorney General of Virginia has issued civil investigative demands (like a subpoena) for UVA to turn over thousands of documents in Mr. Mann’s files, including e-mails, correspondence, notes and memos, for the last 11 years. The theory is that because Mr. Mann received $500,000 in research grants, he may have defrauded the public with his research on global warming.

UVA asked the court to quash the civil demands, stating” “As Thomas Jefferson intended the University of Virginia has a long and proud tradition of embracing the ‘illimitable freedom of the human mind’ by fully endorsing and supporting faculty research and scholarly pursuits.”

The stakes are high. As the Lynchburg paper put it “If a politician who disagrees with the outcomes of research into any particular topic or who disagrees with the fundamental research premise itself can launch a “fraud” investigation against the “offending” scientist, then a chilling message is sent through the academic community.” We are all free to disagree with climate scientists, but when that disagreement turns into the use of the public power of prosecution, then the implications for freedom of thought are fundamentally changed.


---Scientists defend global warming work---
By Stephen Dinan
4:00 a.m., Thursday, May 20, 2010
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/20/scientists-defend-research-on-global-warming/

Six months after "climategate" called into question the science underpinning claims of global warming, the National Academy of Sciences said Wednesday the science is sound, human-caused warming is already occurring, and the U.S. must take urgent action.

Trying to end the scientific debate and set the stage for action, the National Research Council, an arm of the Academy, took the unusual step of recommending specific political moves. The council called for lawmakers to set a price on carbon dioxide emissions through either a tax or a cap-and-trade system, and to adopt an emissions-reductions target similar to the one proposed by President Obama.

"Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for - and in many cases is already affecting - a broad range of human and natural systems," the scientists concluded in one of several congressionally mandated reports released Wednesday.

The report comes three years after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that global warming is real and very likely manmade. But that report, and the temperature record underlying many of its conclusions, have come into question with the revelation of e-mails from a leading British climate research project that seemed to suggest scientists manipulated data. Critics labeled the e-mails "climategate."

The science debate will get an airing in Congress. Rep. Edward J. Markey, chairman of the House Select Committee on Global Warming, will hold a hearing Thursday on the academy's reports.

But the science also could face a challenge on the Senate floor soon.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Alaska Republican, is planning to offer legislation that would overturn the Environmental Protection Agency's recent decision to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.

Already, Freedom Action, a project of employees of the free-market think-tank Competitive Enterprise Institute, is running radio ads in six states arguing that the e-mails in question taint the entire process.

"The National Academy of Sciences reports are swimming against the tide here, which is they're trying to save the establishment position supporting alarmism, when not only the science is moving against them, but public opinion is going against them, partly because of climategate," said Myron Ebell, director of Freedom Action.

Mr. Ebell predicted that even lawmakers who conclude global warming is occurring, and is largely caused by humans, might still balk at the Obama administration rules as being unwise and potentially damaging to some states' economies. And he said there will be other votes that could give Congress other chances to object to the administration rules.

The House last year passed a bill that set a limit on carbon emissions and allowed emission credits to be traded among companies, but that approach has stalled in the Senate. Sens. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, and Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent, announced a different set of caps last week, but that approach appears to lack enough support to overcome an expected filibuster.

Pamela A. Matson, who led the panel on climate science, said members were aware of "the publicity around doubts about climate change," and that research is never finished.

But she said they have high confidence now that warming is occurring, and the panelists said research should now begin to focus not on whether warming is occurring but rather on questions of how to combat warming or adapt to its effects.

She said their conclusions in the reports are in line with many in the IPCC's 2007 report, though for example where the earlier report said sea levels might rise by as much as a foot and a half through 2100, new research says it could rise by as much as 5 feet.

Environmentalists said the academy reports should be a turning point in the debate.

"Those who are out there denying climate science, many for ideological reasons, aren't going to go away, so in that sense this report doesn't end that debate. I don't think you ever can. But I do hope it turns a corner and allows people to really see what the fundamental conclusions of the scientific community are," said Dan Lashof, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate center.


---Still Under Attack, Climate Scientists Fight Back---
By Bryan Walsh Friday, May. 07, 2010
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1987697,00.html?xid=rss-topstories
Has any field suffered a faster drop in public confidence than climate science? Two and a half years ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was finishing up its widely acclaimed fourth assessment on global warming, which made an unequivocal case for the threat of man-made climate change. For its work, the IPCC was rewarded with the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize - shared with Al Gore for his green advocacy - and polls showed strong concern over global warming, even in the U.S. By the time of President Barack Obama's election in 2008, the stage seemed set for climate science to go from the professional journals to the stuff of legislation.

But that was then. Thanks in part to the events of Climategate last November - when someone hacked into and released thousands of e-mails and documents from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at Britain's East Anglia University - climate scientists now find themselves under fire. The Climategate e-mails revealed that scientists used terms like trick while discussing climate modeling techniques, which was enough to set off skeptics, who considered it proof that scientists were bending data to reach their conclusions, and making climate change seem worse than it really was. In the aftermath of Climategate, critics also uncovered factual errors - small and few, but real - in the IPCC's fourth assessment. (See how alternative energy sources were discussed at the World Energy Technologies Summit.)

It energized global-warming skeptics. Most recently, on April 23, Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli launched a civil investigative demand (CID) with the University of Virginia (UVA), searching for information on the climate scientist Michael Mann, who once worked at UVA. Mann, who now runs the Earth Systems Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, authored many of the controversial e-mails at the center of Climategate.

The cost of these assaults is real. Despite the fact that a parliamentary inquiry in Britain looked into Climategate and in March exonerated Phil Jones, the head of CRU, of any wrongdoing, the damage had been done. A British survey in February found a 30% drop over just one year in the percentage of adults who said climate change was "definitely" real, and polls in the U.S. have found a similar decline.

In the face of that dwindling in public confidence - and a renewed surge in attacks from global-warming skeptics - climate scientists are finally fighting back. In the May 7 edition of Science, 255 members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, including 11 Nobel laureates, signed a letter decrying what they call the "political assaults on scientists and climate scientists in particular." They argue that the attacks on climate science are ideologically motivated by those who want to delay any action on global warming and that it has resulted in a new McCarthyism. "There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions," the authors write in Science. But "for a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet."

That was the argument made by Representative Edward Markey, the pugnacious Massachusetts Democrat in charge of the Select House Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming, at a congressional hearing he held Thursday morning on the science of climate change. With the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico still leaking oil with no clear end in sight, Markey reminded Congress that climate change and dependence on petroleum are intertwined - and that no amount of denial could change that inconvenient fact. The U.S. needs to "acknowledge the basic facts that have been known for decades," Markey said in his opening statement. "Increasing carbon pollution in the atmosphere is warming the planet and the only way to put a halt to such warming is to move to clean-energy solutions."

Even in Virginia, where attorney general Cuccinelli has kept up his investigation into Mann's work, academics have pushed back and criticized skeptics for going too far. Cuccinelli's CID is exploring potential violations of the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act; it gives the state 30 days to produce more than 10 years' worth of documents related to state-funded research by Mann during his time at UVA. (Cuccinelli has said he wants to find out whether any of Mann's research, which was conducted with some state grants, was purposefully "steering a course to reach a conclusion," according to the Washington Post.) But Mann's peers at UVA have reciprocated, releasing a position statement arguing that Cuccinelli's investigation may be politically motivated - he has also filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency for attempting to regulate greenhouse gases - and that his actions "directly threaten academic freedom and, thus, our ability to generate the knowledge upon which informed public policy relies."

Ultimately, that's what may lie at stake here - whether politics can be kept from interfering with science. In truth, climate change is as much a political problem as it is a scientific one, and no one would argue that science is free of bias. But science does have a self-correcting mechanism - in fact, this week the InterAcademy Council, a coalition of global scientific organizations, named a 12-member committee to review the workings of the IPCC. Scientists have learned from Climategate that they need to be more open. Climate change is too global a problem to be left to the academy, and if scientists are to be trusted, they need to be held accountable - but not by investigations carried out in the name of partisanship rather than truth.


---Virginia Steps Toward Climategate Investigation---
Thursday, May 6, 2010
http://mensnewsdaily.com/sexandmetro/2010/05/06/virginia-steps-toward-climategate-investigation/

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is invoking a state anti-fraud law to demand the University of Virginia turn over years worth of documents related to climate scientist Michael Mann, targeting about $500,000 in grants that funded Mann’s studies.

Cuccinelli, a Republican who is separately suing the federal government over regulation of carbon emissions, issued the school a civil subpoena late last month probing “possible violations” of the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act by the former U.Va. professor. Mann, now a professor at Penn State, is famous for creating the controversial “hockey stick” graph charting a spike in global temperatures.

0 コメント: