RightwingWatchSteve Benen (MSNBC)などによれば、連邦議会における温暖化否定論の代表的主張者たる共和党James Inhofe連邦上院議員が、温暖化否定論本"he Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future"の出版に関して、Voice of Christian Youth Americaのラジオ番組"Crosstalk with Vic Eliason"に登場(2012/03/07)して、創世記を引用して温暖化否定を語った。
Eliason: Senator, we’re going to talk about your book for a minute, you state in your book which by the way is called The Greatest Hoax, you state in your book that one of your favorite Bible verses, Genesis 8:22, ‘while the earth remaineth seed time and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease,’ what is the significance of these verses to this issue?

上院議員、我々は、あなたの本について少し話します。あなたの本"The Greatest Hoax"で、お気に入りの聖書の一節のひとつとして、創世記8章22節「地の続くかぎり、種蒔きも刈り入れも/寒さも暑さも、夏も冬も/昼も夜も、やむことはない。」を挙げています。これは、この問題について、どのような意味を持っていますか?

Inhofe: Well actually the Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that ‘as long as the earth remains there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night,’ my point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.



Caller: Senator, do you quote any Scripture in your book?


Inhofe: Yeah, as a matter of fact I do. My favorite is Genesis 8:22 which is ‘as long as the earth remains there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night,’ you know, God’s still up there. There’s another piece of Scripture I’ll mention which I should’ve mentioned, no one seems to remember this, the smartest thing the activists did in trying to put their program through is try to get the evangelicals on their side, so they hired a guy named Cizik, and he had his picture in front of Vanity magazine dressed like Jesus walking on water. He has been exposed since then to be the liberal that he is. I would say that the other Scripture that I use quite frequently on this subject is Romans 1:25, ‘They give up the truth about God for a lie and they worship God’s creation instead of God, who will be praised forever.’ In other words, they are trying to say we should worship the creation. We were reminded back in Romans that this was going to happen and sure enough it’s happening.

もちろん、実際、引用しています。私のお気に入りは創世記8章22節は地の続くかぎり、種蒔きも刈り入れも/寒さも暑さも、夏も冬も/昼も夜も、やむことはない。」です。ご存知のように、神は今も、そこにいるのです。もうひとつ私は言及すべき聖書の一節を引用していまう。誰も、このことを覚えていないようですが、活動家が自分の計画を広めようとして行う最もスマートな方法は、福音主義を味方につけることです。なので彼らはCizikという名前の人物を雇って、水の上を歩くイエスのような衣装をつけて、Vanity magzineの表紙を飾りました。彼はそれによって、自分がリベラルであることを、あらわにしました。この問題に関して、私がよく引用する聖書の一節は、ローマの信徒への手紙1章25節「神の真理を偽りに替え、造り主の代わりに造られた物を拝んでこれに仕えたのです。造り主こそ、永遠にほめたたえられるべき方です」です。言い換えるなら、これは、神の創造行為を崇拝すべきと言っています。これは起きようとしていたし、十分に起きていることだということを、ローマの信徒への手紙は我々に思い出させてくれます。

[Brian Tashman: "James Inhofe Says the Bible Refutes Climate Change" (2012/03/08) on RightingWatch]

これまでにも、共和党John Shimkus連邦下院議員が公聴会で創世記8章22節を読み上げて、地球温暖化は起きないという信念を表明したことがある。しかし、James Inhofe連邦上院議員は聖書を掲げて温暖化否定を語るようなことはしてこなかった。それが、ここで創世記8章22節を掲げたのは、福音主義キリスト教徒たちの票も確保したいというところか?
posted by Kumicit at 2012/03/10 09:52 | Comment(0) | TrackBack(0) | Sound Science | このブログの読者になる | 更新情報をチェックする


ExxonMobil, Willie Soon, Rockefeller

[ExxonMobil: safety & environment -- Managing climate change risks (via Jamie Vernon)]

Our strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is focused on increasing energy efficiency in the short term, implementing proven emission-reducing technologies in the near and medium term, and developing breakthrough, game-changing technologies for the long term. Technological innovation will play a central role in our ability to increase supply, improve efficiency, and reduce emissions. Approximately 90 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions generated by petroleum products are released when customers use our products, and the remaining 10 percent are generated by industry operations. Therefore, technology is also needed to reduce energy-related emissions by end users.


[ExxonMobil: safety & environment -- Managing long-term climate risks ]

Rising greenhouse-gas emissions pose significant risks to society and ecosystems. Since most of these emissions are energy-related, any integrated approach to meeting the world’s growing energy needs over the coming decades must incorporate strategies to address the risk of climate change. ...

これまで、ExxonMobilが温暖化否定論研究に資金提供してきたことが知られており、違和感を感じるものがある。たとえば、温暖化否定論で有名なDr. Willie Soonについて、これまで相当額の助成金を出してきた。
Documents provided to Greenpeace by the Smithsonian under the US Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) show that the Charles G Koch Foundation , a leading provider of funds for climate sceptic groups, gave Soon two grants totalling $175,000 (then roughly £102,000) in 2005/6 and again in 2010. In addition the American Petroleum insitute (API) , which represents the US petroleum and natural gas industries, gave him multiple grants between 2001 and 2007 totalling $274,000, oil company Exxon Mobil provided $335,000 between 2005 and 2010, and Soon received other grants from coal and oil industry sources including the Mobil Foundation, the Texaco Foundation and the Electric Power Research Institute.

US Freedom of Information Act(米国情報自由法)に基づいて、GreenpeaceへSmithsonianから提供された文書によれば、温暖化懐疑論者への主要な資金提供者であるCharles G Koch FoundationはSoonに対して、2回2005/6年と2010年に合計17万5000ドルの助成金を出していた。さらに、米国の石油および天然ガス業界を代表するAmerican Petroleum insituteは2001年と2007年に合計27万4000ドルを、石油会社Exxon Mobilは2005〜2010年に33万5000ドルを提供していた。SoonはこのほかにMobil FoundationとTexaco FoundationとElectric Power Research Instituteなどからも助成金を受けていた。

[John Vidal: "Climate sceptic Willie Soon received $1m from oil companies, papers show" (2011/06/28) on Guardian]

FunderGrant Description from sourceGrant Year(s)Grant AmountSource
Electric Power Research Institute1994-1999??Soon published papers
American Petroleum Institute1994-1997??Soon published papers
Mobil Foundation1995-1997??Soon published papers
Texaco Foundation1996??Soon published papers
American Petroleum InstituteSun's impact on climate over the last 1000 years2001, 2002$58,380Smithsonian FOIA
American Petroleum Institute1000 years of solar variability2003$60,053Smithsonian FOIA
American Petroleum InstituteThe 11-22 year climate responses2004, 2005$50,178Smithsonian FOIA
ExxonMobil Foundationlisted by Exxon as a grant to SAO2005$105,000ExxonMobil Worldwide Giving Report 2005
Charles G. Koch FoundationKoch/Mobile Charitable foundation2005, 2006$110,000Smithsonian FOIA
American Petroleum InstituteUnderstanding Arctic Climate Change2005, 2006$50,000Smithsonian FOIA
ExxonMobil FoundationListed by Exxon as "project support" to SAO.2006$105,000ExxonMobil Worldwide Giving Report 2005
Southern CompanyUnderstanding Arctic Climate Change2006, 2007$110,000Smithsonian FOIA
American Petroleum InstituteThe solar influence of arctic climate change2006, 2007$55,000Smithsonian FOIA
ExxonMobil FoundationExxon-Arctic climate change2007, 2008$55,000Smithsonian FOIA/Exxon Giving Report
ExxonMobil FoundationExxon-soon solar variability2008-2010$70,106Smithsonian FOIA/Exxon Giving Report
Free to ChooseThe sun's influence on climate change2008$19,383Smithsonian FOIA
Southern CompanySolar variability and Climate Change signals from temperature2008, 2009$120,000Smithsonian FOIA
Charles G. Koch FoundationUnderstanding solar variability and climate change2010$65,000Smithsonian FOIA

[CASE STUDY: Dr. Willie Soon, a Career Fueled by Big Oil and Coal on Geenpeace]
Geenpeaceだけだと怪しい気もするが、Reutersによれば、Dr. Soonはこれを認めている。
Soon agreed he had received funding from all of the groups and companies, but denied any group would have influenced his studies. "I have never been motivated by financial reward in any of my scientific research," he said.


[US climate skeptic Soon funded by oil, coal firms (2011/06/28) by Reuters]

で、その後、昨年はDr. Willie Soonは研究資金を手にできていない。
According to the documents, Exxon provided $55,000 for Soon to study Arctic climate change in 2007 and 2008, and another $76,106 for research into solar variability between 2008 and 2010.

Exxon spokesman Alan Jeffers said this week the company did not fund Soon last year, and that it funds hundreds of organisations to do research on climate and the environment.

Southern gave Soon $120,000 starting in 2008 to study the Sun's relation to climate change, according to the FIA documents. Spokeswoman Stephanie Kirijan said the company has spent about $500m on funding environmental research and development ,and that it did not fund Soon last year.

公開された文書によれば、ExxonMobilはSoonに対して、北極の気候変動について2007年と2008年に5万5000ドル、2008〜2010年に太陽変動について7万6106ドルの研究助成金を提供した。ExxonMobilの広報担当Alan Jefferは今週「当社は昨年はSoonには資金提供しておらず、数百の気候・環境研究機関に資金援助した」と述べた。

FIA文書によれば、Southern Companyは2008年からの、太陽と気候変動の関係研究に対して12万ドルを提供した。Southern Companyの広報担当Stephanie Kirijanは「当社は環境研究・開発に5億ドルを費やしてきたが、昨年はSoonには資金提供していない」と述べた。

[John Vidal: "Climate sceptic Willie Soon received $1m from oil companies, papers show" (2011/06/28) on Guardian]

The move comes ahead of the firm's annual meeting today in Dallas, at which prominent shareholders including the Rockefeller family will urge ExxonMobil to take the problem of climate change more seriously. Green campaigners accuse the company of funding a "climate denial industry" over the last decade, with $23m (£11.5m) handed over to groups that play down the risks of burning fossil fuels.

The ExxonMobil report says: "In 2008 we will discontinue contributions to several public policy research groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner."

Nine groups have reportedly lost the company's support, including the George C Marshall Institute, the Washington DC-based think tank that asserts there is no scientific consensus on climate change, and that changes in the sun, not greenhouse gases, could be responsible for rising temperatures.



「気候変動には科学的コンセンサスがなく、温室効果ガスではなく、太陽活動が気候変動の原因である」と主張してきたWashington DCに本拠地を置くシンクタンクGeorge C Marshall Instituteなど9つのグループがExxonMobilの研究助成金を失ったと伝えられている。

{David Adam: "Exxon to cut funding to climate change denial groups" (2008/05/28) on Guardian]
ExxonMobilはGeorge C Marshall Instituteなどへの資金提供を2008年にやめ、個人Dr Willie Soonへの資金提供も2010年で終了。

posted by Kumicit at 2012/02/10 07:17 | Comment(1) | TrackBack(0) | Sound Science | このブログの読者になる | 更新情報をチェックする



What caused this year's unprecedented Arctic ozone hole?

Earth's ozone holes are due to the presence of human-emitted CFC gases in the stratosphere. The ozone destruction process is greatly accelerated when the atmosphere is cold enough to make clouds in the stratosphere. These polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs) act like ozone destruction factories, by providing convenient surfaces for the reactions that destroy ozone to occur. PSCs only form in the 24-hour darkness of unusually cold winters near the poles; the atmosphere is too warm elsewhere to support PSCs. Stratospheric temperatures are warmer in the Arctic than the Antarctic, so PSCs and ozone destruction in the Arctic has, in the past, been much less than in the Antarctic. In order to get temperatures cold enough to allow formation of PSCs, a strong vortex of swirling winds around the pole needs to develop. Such a "polar vortex" isolates the cold air near the pole, keeping it from mixing with warmer air from the mid-latitudes. A strong polar vortex in winter and spring is common in the Antarctic, but less common in the Arctic, since there are more land masses that tend to cause large-scale disruptions to the winds of the polar vortex, allowing warm air from the south to mix northwards. However, as the authors of the Nature study wrote, "The persistence of a strong, cold vortex from December through to the end of March was unprecedented. In February - March 2011, the barrier to transport at the Arctic vortex edge was the strongest in either hemisphere in the last ~30 years. This unusual polar vortex, combined with very cold Arctic stratospheric temperatures typical of what we've seen in recent decades, led to the most favorable conditions ever observed for formation of Arctic PSCs. The reasons for this unusual vortex are unknown.

地球のオゾンホールは人間が放出したCFCガスが成層圏に存在することによって生じる。オゾンの破壊過程は成層圏が十分に寒くて、成層圏に雲が形成される場合に、大きく加速される。これらPSC(極地成層圏雲)は、オゾンを破壊する化学反応の"convnient surface"を提供することにより、オゾン破壊工場のように働く。PSC(極地成層圏雲)は、極近くで非常に寒い24時間夜なときにのみ形成される。それ以外の大気圏は暖かすぎてPSC(極地成層圏雲)を維持できない。南極より北極の方が成層圏の気温は高い。そのため、北極でのPSC(極地成層圏雲)形成およびオゾン破壊はこれまで、南極よりはるかに小さかった。PSC(極地成層圏雲)が形成されるような低気温を実現するには、極をめぐるswirling windの大きな渦が必要である。そのような"polar vortex"は極近くの冷たい大気を隔離し、中緯度の暖かい大気と混合するのを防ぐ。南極に比べて、北極回りには"polar vortex"の風を大きく乱してしまうような大きな陸地があり、南からの大気の流れと混合されやすくなっている。このために、冬から春にかけての強い"polar vortex"は南極ではよくあることだが、北極ではあまり見られなかった。しかし、Nature掲載論文の著者たちは「12月から3月末にかけて強く冷たい渦が持続したのは、これまでになかった。2011年2-3月には北極の渦の端での大気混合に対する障壁は、南北極あわせて過去30年で最強のものだった。」と書いている。過去数十年に典型的にみられる北極成層圏の低気温とあわせて、この普通でない"polar votex"により、これまでに見られないPSC(極地成層圏雲)形成の好条件が整えられた。この普通でない"polar votex"の原因は不明である。

[JeffMasters: "Unprecedented Arctic ozone hole in 2011; a Florida tropical storm next week?" (2011/10/04) on Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog]



posted by Kumicit at 2011/11/01 07:44 | Comment(3) | TrackBack(0) | Sound Science | このブログの読者になる | 更新情報をチェックする



Conservative white males are more likely to endorse climate change denial than the rest of the American public, says a new study published in the July issue of the Journal of Global Environmental Change.

The results were based on data from 10,000 respondents in ten annual polls on environmental issues conducted by Gallup from 2001 to 2010.

The study included five indicators of climate change denial taken from Gallup's annual phone interviews throughout that 10-year period, explained researcher Riley E. Dunlap, who co-authored "Cool Dudes: The Denial Of Climate Change Among Conservative White Males In The United States" with Aaron M. McCright.

Journal of Global Environmental Changeの7月号に敬愛あれた研究によれば、保守的白人男性は、それ以外の米国人よりも温暖化否定論を支持する傾向が強い。この結果は2001〜2010年にGallupが環境問題について実施した10000名を対象とする世論調査に基づくものである。

この研究には、10年間にGallupが実施した電話世論調査の5つの温暖化否定指標が含まれていると、M. McCrightとともに"Cool Dudes: The Denial Of Climate Change Among Conservative White Males In The United States"を執筆したRiley E. Dunlapは説明する。

The climate change denial indicators that the researchers honed in on included:

1) When the effects of global warming will happen
2) Whether climate change is attributed to human activities or natural change
3) Whether they believe global warming occurs
4) How much they personally worry about climate change
5) Whether they believe in the scientific evidence on global warming, and how much they think they know about climate change

29.6 percent of conservative white males said they believed that the effects of global warming will never happen, and only 7.4 percent of all other U.S. adults agreed with that view.

The results also showed that 58.5 percent of conservative white males denied that recent temperature increases are primarily caused by human activities, compared to only 31.5 percent of all other adults.

Conservative white males (65.1 percent) were also more than twice as likely to say the media exaggerated the seriousness of climate change compared to other adults (29.9 percent). Furthermore, 39.1 percent of conservative white males said they did not worry at all about global warming, compared to 14.4 percent of all other adults.


  1. 地球温暖化の影響がいつ出るのか
  2. 気候変動は人間の活動によるものか、自然変動か
  3. 地球温暖化が起きているのか
  4. どれくらい気候変動を懸念しているのか
  5. 地球温暖化の科学的証拠を信じているのか、どれくらい自分は気候変動を知っていると思っているのか





[Tara Kelly: "Conservative White Males More Likely To Deny Climate Change, Report Finds" (2011/07/28) on HuffingtonPost]
Dunlap and McCright reference Yale University's Dan Kahan, who researched the so-called "white male effect" in a study finding that white men fear various risks less than women and minorities. Kahan's theory of identity-protective cognition can be applied to Dunlap and McCright's study to show that accepting climate change risk is really no different than fearing other risks, Dunlap said. And because conservative white men tend to benefit from the current socio-economic system and subscribe to a hierarchical and individualistic worldview, recognizing climate change would be against the current status quo, explained Dunlap.

Dunlap and McCrightはYale Universityのan Kahanのいわゆる白人男性効果について触れている。このKahanの研究は、白人男性が女性やマイノリティよりも、様々なリスクを恐れない傾向にあることを見出している。アイデンティティ防衛的認知についてのKahanの理論は、Dunlap and McCrightの研究に適用できて、気候変動のリスクを認めることは、他のリスクを恐れるのと何ら違いがないことを示していると、Dunlapは言う。そいて、保守的白人男性は現在の社会経済システムから利益を得ていて、階層的かつ個人主義的世界観を採用しているので、気候変動を認めることは、その状態に反することになっているとDunlapは説明する。
posted by Kumicit at 2011/08/05 07:55 | Comment(0) | TrackBack(0) | Sound Science | このブログの読者になる | 更新情報をチェックする


エアロゾルによって温暖化が抑制されている by NOAA


原論文はこれ=>RK. Kaufmann et al:"Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008", doi: 10.1073/pnas.1102467108, PNAS July 5, 2011,


==>S. Solomon et al.:The Persistently Variable “Background” Stratospheric Aerosol Layer and Global Climate Change, Science DOI:10.1126/science.1206027

The new research has focused on aerosols, the tiny solid or liquid particles that exist in the atmosphere that can affect global temperatures, such as when Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines, erupted in 1991 causing a worldwide average decrease in temperature of 1 degree Celsius for more than a year. The cooling is not the result of the ash, notes co-author Susan Soloman, but from the sulfur dioxide that is thrust all the way up into the stratosphere, where it oxidizes and adds to the sun reflecting properties of other already existing particles.

1991年のフィリピンのピナツボ火山の噴火で全地球の気温が1年にわたり1℃低下したように、全地球の温度に影響する、待機中に存在する、小さな固体あるいは液体の粒子であるエアロゾルにフォーカスした新たな研究が行われた。共著者Susan Solomonは寒冷化が火山灰の影響ではなく、亜硫酸ガスが成層圏に昇って、そこに既に存在している粒子を参加し、太陽光を反射する属性を加えていることによるものだと書いている。

The team focused on the most recent decade because of the relative absence of massive volcanic eruptions , giving them a more clear environmental view of how much impact minor volcanic eruptions and human activities have on the amount of aerosols in the atmosphere and thus global temperatures. To find out what was going on, they used both ground based data and information from satellites such as Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observations (Calipso), to measure the amount of aerosols in the atmosphere and at what altitudes.


NOAA has released a statement outlining the results of the study, and in it Daniel, says, “stratospheric aerosol increased surprisingly rapidly in that time, almost doubling during the decade,” which forms the basis of the teams conclusions that such aerosols are responsible for the slowdown in increased temperatures that scientist around the world have been expecting due to greenhouse gas emissions.


The surprising aspect of the study is the large amount of aerosols found during a period when there weren’t any giant volcanoes going off, which leads researches to wonder if the aerosols are from the combined effects of multiple small eruptions, or human activity, such as the particles emitted from coal fired power plants, particularly in Asia, where such plants have multiplied in recent years. One thing the research is not able to tell us is what impact aerosols will likely have in the future, because of the uncertainty of their origin, which means there is no way to tell at this point if there will be more, or less of them, which means scientists can only guess if the temperature muting will continue to offset global warming from current and future carbon emissions.


[Bob Yirka:"NOAA study suggests aerosols might be inhibiting global warming" (2011/07/22) on Phys.Org]

posted by Kumicit at 2011/07/24 08:16 | Comment(0) | TrackBack(0) | Sound Science | このブログの読者になる | 更新情報をチェックする