|
- |
Norway Data Shows Earth’s Global Warming Less Severe Than Feared After the planet’s average surface temperature rose through the 1990s, the increase has almost leveled off at the level of 2000, while ocean water temperature has also stabilized, the Research Council of Norway said in a statement on its website. After applying data from the past decade, the results showed temperatures may rise 1.9 degrees Celsius if Co2 levels double by 2050, below the 3 degrees predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “The Earth’s mean temperature rose sharply during the 1990s,” said Terje Berntsen, a professor at the University of Oslo who worked on the study. “This may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity.” The findings also show the effect of reduced airborne particulates from burning coal, which may decrease the cloud cover that cools the earth, probably has less of an impact on climate through indirect cooling than originally projected. |
Pourtant, on nous a dit que le débat était clos et que les conclusions du GIEC étaient définitives…
J’imagine que les chauffagiste ont tort…
Christinne Lagarde, chef de l’IMF a Davos…et Jim Yong Kim president de la Banque Mondiale, tout sauf des gauchistes ecolos….
Un petit extrait…
But the most startling statements came from the heads of those bastions of economic orthodoxy: the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the IMF and a former finance minister in the conservative government of Nicolas Sarkozy, pointed to critical pivot points for the economic future.
Her final pivot: “Increasing vulnerability from resource scarcity and climate change, with the potential for major social and economic disruption: This is the real wild card in the pack.” She went on to call climate change “the greatest economic challenge of the 21st century.” This from the head of the IMF.
Ms. Lagarde concluded with a call for a new kind of economic growth. “So we need growth, but we also need green growth that respects environmental sustainability. Good ecology is good economics. This is one reason why getting carbon pricing right and removing fossil fuel subsidies are so important.”
In response to a question from the audience, she said: “Unless we take action on climate change, future generations will be roasted, toasted, fried and grilled.”
Jim Yong Kim, president of the World Bank, went so far as to insist that climate change be at the top of the Davos agenda, along with finance and growth, “because global warming imperils all of the development gains we have made.”
He went on to say that “the world’s top priority must be to get finance flowing and get prices right on all aspects of energy costs to support low-carbon growth.” Achieving a predictable price on carbon that accurately reflects real environmental costs is key to delivering emission reductions at scale. Correct energy pricing can also provide incentives for investments in energy efficiency and cleaner energy technologies.
A second immediate step is to end harmful fuel subsidies globally, which could lead to a 5-per-cent reduction in emissions by 2020.
These statements are not from the head of Greenpeace or from David Suzuki. They come from the heads of the bulwarks of the international financial system.
For years, the IMF has resisted straying into the realm of environment and finance, viewing it as a side issue best left to international environmental organizations. And while the World Bank has invested in low-carbon futures and has been active in climate talks, the issue has not been raised to the top of its agenda. Until now.
Climate change as the main economic discussion point at the annual meeting of the rich and famous leaders of governments and multinational enterprises? Will our Prime Minister or Finance Minister be the next to see the light?
Les chauffagistes ne sont pas aussi isolés que l’on veut bien le penser
Le président de Total, de Margerie n’a pas dit autre chose, a Davos également, en termes plus mesurés, références sur demande…et il a douché, en passant, les espoirs de ceux qui comptent sur le pétrole de schiste et le gaz de schiste, expliquant que l’on était a un plateau de production que l’on ne pourra dépasser…mais j’imagine que notre ami David as plus d’informations que tous ces gens…
Un dangereux chauffagiste aussi ?
Comme par hasard, tous des étatiste radical…
Des gens qui utilisent le réchauffement imaginaire comme prétexte pour augmenter le pouvoir du gouvernement.
Ces gens sont des idéologue, moi je cite des scientifiques.
De Margerie PDG de Total est aussi un étatiste radical ?
Diantre….qui ne l’est pas dans ca cas ?
L’épistémologie, nous enseigne aussi que la science n’est pas neutre, sans parler des études sur le climat, par des scientifiques payés par des groupes de pression favorables a l’industrie pétrolière…
Sen. James M. Inhofe once famously called global warming the « greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. » It’s a deliciously concise phrase – so well said, in fact, that it demands repeating, because it is so sure of itself, and so wrong.
In the delirious tradition of American conspiracy theories (like that old farce, the Apollo 11 moon landing) Inhofe backs up categorical declarations with voluminous documentation.
Inhofe’s latest claim is that « Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming. » It’s a claim backed up by honest-to-goodness research, of the cut-and-paste kind.
Here’s a quick breakdown of Johnson’s findings:
Inhofe’s list includes 413 people. (Score one Inhofe; the math holds up.)
84 have either taken money from, or are connected to, fossil fuel industries, or think tanks started by those industries.
49 are retired
44 are television weathermen
20 are economists
70 have no apparent expertise in climate science
Several supposed skeptics have publicly stated that they are very concerned about global warming, and support efforts to address it. One claims he was duped into signing the list and regrets it.
Before we get ahead of ourselves, here are some concessions and explanations:
Taking money from companies that have an established stake in burning fossil fuels doesn’t mean your science is junk, but it ought to sound alarm bells for anyone aiming for the label of « skeptic. »
Being retired doesn’t mean you’ve lost your smarts, but it does make it harder to be considered « prominent » on a cutting-edge issue.
Weathermen help us navigate the vagaries of weather on a local level every day, but this isn’t a discipline that requires forecasting world climate conditions decades from now. (Prominent? In one sense: They are more frequently seen and heard.)
Economists, clearly, are valuable participants in policy debates. Clearly, they aren’t climate scientists.
Finally, we could line up 59 regular people (hi Mom!) who don’t have any particular expertise in climate science, but believe adamantly in it. You wouldn’t care what they think.
Here is our conclusion: Any list with that much « filler » ought to raise the hair on any skeptic’s neck.
Science is the only discipline built on skepticism. It’s the job of every scientist to question, and test, his or her own conclusions, and those of colleagues.
The whole fact Inhofe was trying to debunk – that there is a broad consensus among scientists that global warming is real, caused by humans and a serious threat – was only articulated because of hoaxes perpetrated by the so-called skeptics on this list. (Why not assume Inhofe found them all?) By undermining the press and politicians on the issue, those global warming skeptics helped keep the problem from being recognized, let alone addressed, for years. One could say they stood squarely in the path of truth, and thwarted its progress, jujitsu-style, until finally being overrun by a triumphantly emboldened mass.
If you hunger for lists of skeptics – the scientific kind with true expertise – we have some recommendations.
For instance, the American Geophysical Union, which includes 50,000 earth, ocean and atmospheric scientists, among others, whose first mission is to value the scientific method (rational skepticism), has stated since 2003 that « Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth’s climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth’s history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century. … The unprecedented increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, together with other human influences on climate over the past century and those anticipated for the future, constitute a real basis for concern. »
Read more: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-47011101#ixzz2Jqv2AxuJ
Ce dont vous parlez n’est pas une étude mais un fil de presse repris par Bloomberg. On peut voir l’étude ?
Bien sûr, c’est de la rapace qui veulent utiliser la légende urbaine qu’est le réchauffement climatique pour faire du fric. Il n’y a rien de nouveau la dedans.
……………………………………..________
………………………………,.-’ »……………….« ~.,
………………………..,.- »…………………………….. »-.,
…………………….,/……………………………………….. »:,
…………………,?………………………………………………,
………………./…………………………………………………..,}
……………../………………………………………………,:`^`..}
……………/……………………………………………,: »………/
…………..?…..__…………………………………..:`………../
…………./__.(….. »~-,_…………………………,:`………./
………../(_…. »~,_…….. »~,_………………..,:`…….._/
……….{.._$;_…… »=,_……. »-,_…….,.-~-,},.~ »;/….}
………..((…..*~_……. »=-._…… »;,,./`…./ »…………../
…,,,___.`~,…… »~.,………………..`…..}…………../
…………(….`=-,,…….`……………………(……;_,,- »
…………/.`~,……`-………………………………./
………….`~.*-,……………………………….|,./…..,__
,,_……….}.>-._……………………………..|…………..`=~-,
…..`=~-,__……`,……………………………
……………….`=~-,,.,………………………….
…………………………..`:,,………………………`…………..__
……………………………….`=-,……………….,%`>–==«
…………………………………._……….._,-%…….`
……………………………..,
« … le réchauffement imaginaire… »
Bien sûr, bien sûr…