- Bishop Hill blog Allègre: il faut supprimer le Giec | slate Le Giec, Groupement intergouvernemental d'étude du climat, est un organisme de l'ONU (Organisation des Nations Unies). Sa vocation est de faire le point sur les questions climatiques et d'en tirer des recommandations pour les Etats et la communauté internationale. Il réalise un rapport tous les cinq ans qui se compose d'un volumineux ouvrage scientifique où collaborent des centaines de scientifiques mais que personne ne lit. Il publie en même temps un résumé d'une centaine de pages qui est cette fois rédigé par une quarantaine de personnes et qui est en général fortement biaisé en faveur des thèses les plus alarmistes. publicité C'est sur la foi de ces rapports qu'ont été organisées les conférences de Kyoto puis de Copenhague. Cette thèse est aujourd'hui contestée par des scientifiques de plus en plus nombreux. L'objectivité et la qualité des rapports du Giec est désormais mise en cause. La question qui est désormais posée est: faut-il dissoudre le Giec? Claude Allègre Devenez fan sur
Bjorn Lomborg: A Chipper Environmentalist The news from environmental organizations is almost always bleak. The climate is out of whack. Insidious chemicals taint food and drink. So it is a surprise to meet someone who calls himself an environmentalist but who asserts that things are getting better, that the rate of human population growth is past its peak, that agriculture is sustainable and pollution is ebbing, that forests are not disappearing, that there is no wholesale destruction of plant and animal species and that even global warming is not as serious as commonly portrayed. Strange to say, the author of this happy thesis is not a steely-eyed economist at a conservative Washington think tank but a vegetarian, backpack-toting academic who was a member of Greenpeace for four years. Dr. But Dr. Dr. "Three months into the project, we were convinced that we were being debunked instead," Dr. Dr. Dr. "The Litany has pervaded the debate so deeply and so long," Dr. To understand the world as it is, Dr.
the Air Vent The Science of Doom Scientific heresy I'm grateful to Matt Ridley for allowing me to post the text of his Angus Millar lecture at the RSA in Edinburgh. [Update: I have prepared a PDF version of the talk, which has the important slides as well.] It is a great honour to be asked to deliver the Angus Millar lecture. I have no idea whether Angus Millar ever saw himself as a heretic, but I have a soft spot for heresy. My topic today is scientific heresy. Let us run through some issues, starting with the easy ones. Astronomy is a science; astrology is a pseudoscience. Evolution is science; creationism is pseudoscience. Molecular biology is science; homeopathy is pseudoscience. Vaccination is science; the MMR scare is pseudoscience. Oxygen is science; phlogiston was pseudoscience. Chemistry is science; alchemy was pseudoscience. Are you with me so far? A few more examples. Three more controversial ones. So is quite a lot, though not all, of the argument for organic farming. So, in a sense by definition, is religious faith. Lesson number 3.
Sharp decline in public's belief in climate threat, British poll Over 1,000 people in Great Britain were questioned on their views on climate change as part of the Ipsos Mori poll. Photograph: Ann Pickford/Rex Features Public conviction about the threat of climate change has declined sharply after months of questions over the science and growing disillusionment with government action, a leading British poll has found. The proportion of adults who believe climate change is "definitely" a reality dropped by 30% over the last year, from 44% to 31%, in the latest survey by Ipsos Mori. Overall around nine out of 10 people questioned still appear to accept some degree of global warming. The true level of doubt is also probably underestimated because the poll only questioned 16 to 64-year-olds. "It's going to be a hard sell to make people make changes to their behaviours unless there's something else in it for them - [such as] energy efficiency measures saving money on fuel bills," said Edward Langley, Ipsos Mori's head of environment research.
Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe See also:Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?US being hoodwinked into draconian climate policiesThe Gods must be laughingA sample of experts' comments about the science of "An Inconvenient Truth": But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites? No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts. So we have a smaller fraction. But it becomes smaller still. Dr. Dr. Dr. Other Articles
Injustice Everywhere Watts Up With That? Sound Stimulus: How Congress Can Find and Fund the Roads that Reduce Our Oil Addiction and Improve Our Quality of Life With input from the incoming Obama Administration, Congress is now building a stimulus bill that will likely result in the largest investment in U.S. infrastructure since the creation of the interstate highway system. For this hundred billion or more in spending to leave our country strategically stronger, not weaker, this moment must be used to chart a new direction for the nation’s transportation systems. The stimulus package must fund major investments in public transportation and high-speed rail, one of the causes the T4 America Campaign is leading with CNU’s full support. But perhaps most of all, the stimulus must distinguish between the right kind and wrong kind of pavement — those investments that make communities more livable and sustainable versus those that weaken our strategic position and make families frighteningly vulnerable to volatile energy prices. Image: A Civic Vision forTurnpike Air Rights, Boston, MA, by Goody Clancy and Associates.
Qui sont les climatosceptiques? | slate Dans la famille climatosceptique, on trouve des scientifiques conservateurs, familiers des lobbys industriels, d'autres qui dézinguent le Giec parce qu'ils n'y retrouvent pas leurs conceptions du réchauffement climatique, d'autres encore qui voient dans la controverse un moyen de rester en scène. L'ampleur du débat mérite que l'on se penche sur ces différents courants d'opposants au réchauffement climatique d'origine humaine. Les think tanks conservateurs Dans un ouvrage à paraître en mai 2010, Merchants of doubt (en prévente sur Amazon, en anglais), Naomi Oreskes, professeur d'histoire des sciences de la terre à l'Université de San Diego et Erik Conway, historien à la Nasa, décrivent le rôle des think tanks américains dans la diffusion du climato-septicisme aux Etats-Unis. «La négation du réchauffement climatique s'inscrit dans une longue tradition de lobbying, lié à des positions idéologiques et non scientifiques», souligne Naomi Oreskes. publicité Les tenants des théories minoritaires