Réchauffement climatique

[john_ross]

Non, j'avais jamais fait gaffe qu'aux States on utilisait encore l'ancien sens de philosophie.

Dans tous les pays anglophones, et du coup par ricochet partout sur toute la planète.

[h16]

Al Gore prétend faire de la recherche scientifique ?

J'adore ta constance à ne louper aucune bonne occasion de te taire. Tu en deviens très prévisible. Mais rigolo.

[Lexington]

Et hop ! A compléter, les bonnes ames sont les bienvenues pour faire disparaitre les liens rouges en écrivant les articles concernés et en ajoutant des noms

[h16]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus…0B-BD9FAF4DCDB7

[Dinsdale]

Et hop ! A compléter, les bonnes ames sont les bienvenues pour faire disparaitre les liens rouges en écrivant les articles concernés et en ajoutant des noms

C'est une page intéressante, mais je n'ai pas trouvé d'équivalent pro-réchauffiste.

Il ne faut pas oublier que les recherches sur l'évolution du climat sont d'ordre scientifique.

La thèse anthropique est largement récupérée par les organisateurs mondiaux du conflit perpétuel (j'ai nommé l'ONU) et il est sain de s'élever contre cette récupération. Seulement, il ne faut pas confondre la vérité scientifique avec sa politisation qui est le fondement du GIEC.

Je pense qu'il serait dommageable pour les libéraux de considérer une thèse scientifique, indépendemment de son utilisation idéologique, comme antilibérale.

Quand bien même la thèse anthropique se révelerait vraie (et dans sa manifestation la plus pessimiste) serions-nous condamnés à vivre sous l'international socialisme?

Il y a-t-il des réchauffistes qui proposent autre chose qu'un appauvrissement et une mise sous tutel de tous les peuples du monde?

[Lexington]

C'est une page intéressante, mais je n'ai pas trouvé d'équivalent pro-réchauffiste.

Il ne faut pas oublier que les recherches sur l'évolution du climat sont d'ordre scientifique.

La thèse anthropique est largement récupérée par les organisateurs mondiaux du conflit perpétuel (j'ai nommé l'ONU) et il est sain de s'élever contre cette récupération. Seulement, il ne faut pas confondre la vérité scientifique avec sa politisation qui est le fondement du GIEC.

Je pense qu'il serait dommageable pour les libéraux de considérer une thèse scientifique, indépendemment de son utilisation idéologique, comme antilibérale.

Quand bien même la thèse anthropique se révelerait vraie (et dans sa manifestation la plus pessimiste) serions-nous condamnés à vivre sous l'international socialisme?

Il y a-t-il des réchauffistes qui proposent autre chose qu'un appauvrissement et une mise sous tutel de tous les peuples du monde?

Le but n'est pas de traiter des chauffagistes mais de compenser le déséquilibre médiatique en présentant la position des nombreux chercheurs qui mettent en avant des explications autres que le dogmatisme du GIEC.

[Dinsdale]

Le but n'est pas de traiter des chauffagistes mais de compenser le déséquilibre médiatique en présentant la position des nombreux chercheurs qui mettent en avant des explications autres que le dogmatisme du GIEC.

J'avais compris votre démarche. Je ne formulais pas plus une critique qu'une interrogation :

"Quand bien même la thèse anthropique se révelerait vraie (et dans sa manifestation la plus pessimiste) serions-nous condamnés à vivre sous l'international socialisme?

Il y a-t-il des réchauffistes qui proposent autre chose qu'un appauvrissement et une mise sous tutel de tous les peuples du monde?"

[Lexington]

J'avais compris votre démarche. Je ne formulais pas plus une critique qu'une interrogation :

Oui, ces réchauffistes sont/seront listés dans la catégorie antialarmisme

[José]

Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'

The uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story, writes Christopher Booker.

If one thing more than any other is used to justify proposals that the world must spend tens of trillions of dollars on combating global warming, it is the belief that we face a disastrous rise in sea levels. The Antarctic and Greenland ice caps will melt, we are told, warming oceans will expand, and the result will be catastrophe.

Although the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only predicts a sea level rise of 59cm (17 inches) by 2100, Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth went much further, talking of 20 feet, and showing computer graphics of cities such as Shanghai and San Francisco half under water. We all know the graphic showing central London in similar plight. As for tiny island nations such as the Maldives and Tuvalu, as Prince Charles likes to tell us and the Archbishop of Canterbury was again parroting last week, they are due to vanish.

But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.

Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by

Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.

The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world".

When running the International Commission on Sea Level Change, he launched a special project on the Maldives, whose leaders have for 20 years been calling for vast sums of international aid to stave off disaster. Six times he and his expert team visited the islands, to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century. Before announcing his findings, he offered to show the inhabitants a film explaining why they had nothing to worry about. The government refused to let it be shown.

Similarly in Tuvalu, where local leaders have been calling for the inhabitants to be evacuated for 20 years, the sea has if anything dropped in recent decades. The only evidence the scaremongers can cite is based on the fact that extracting groundwater for pineapple growing has allowed seawater to seep in to replace it. Meanwhile, Venice has been sinking rather than the Adriatic rising, says Dr Mörner.

One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend".

When I spoke to Dr Mörner last week, he expressed his continuing dismay at how the IPCC has fed the scare on this crucial issue. When asked to act as an "expert reviewer" on the IPCC's last two reports, he was "astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist: not one". Yet the results of all this "deliberate ignorance" and reliance on rigged computer models have become the most powerful single driver of the entire warmist hysteria.

•For more information, see Dr Mörner on YouTube (Google Mörner, Maldives and YouTube); or read on the net his 2007 EIR interview "Claim that sea level is rising is a total fraud"; or email him – morner@pog.nu – to buy a copy of his booklet 'The Greatest Lie Ever Told'

Fined, frozen and now jailed

The Marine Fisheries Agency was certainly onto a winner when it enlisted the aid of the Assets Recovery Agency in its ruthless war against our fishermen. In December 2007 Charles McBride and his son Charles, from Kilkeel in Northern Ireland, were fined £385,000 for under-declaring catches of whitefish and prawns in the Irish Sea, threatening the loss of their homes and boat. But the Assets Recovery Agency, using powers designed to recover money from drug dealers, also froze all their assets. To pay the fines, the McBrides tried to borrow against their assets. Now, for this effort to pay the fines, Liverpool Crown Court has sentenced the two men to two and three months in gaol for “contempt of court”.

Blown away

The Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband, timed his jibe impeccably last week when he said that opposing wind farms is as “socially unacceptable” as “not wearing a seatbelt”. Britain’s largest windfarm companies are pulling out of wind as fast as they can. Despite 100 per cent subsidies, the credit crunch and technical problems spell an end to Gordon Brown’s £100 billion dream of meeting our EU target to derive 35 per cent of our electricity from “renewables” by 2020.

Meanwhile the Government gives the go-ahead for three new 1,000 megawatt gas-fired power stations in Wales. Each of them will generate more than the combined average output (700 megawatts) of all the 2,400 wind turbines so far built. The days of the “great wind fantasy” will soon be over.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columni…-ever-told.html

[philippulus]

La traversée de l'Arctique à la nage

Elaboré entre autre avec des liens trouvés sur ce forum.

[Kerman]

Au fond, le libéral serait plutôt pour un environnementalisme laissez-fairiste ou un envirronnementalisme interventioniste ?

[john_ross]

Regardez qui est revenu avec le printemps : Kerman.

Le libéral est pour le respect du Droit ça vous va comme réponse.

[Capol]

Au fond, le libéral serait plutôt pour un environnementalisme laissez-fairiste ou un envirronnementalisme interventioniste ?

J'interviens dans mes affaires et je laisse-faire dans celles des autres. Et vous ?

[Kerman]

J'interviens dans mes affaires et je laisse-faire dans celles des autres. Et vous ?

La nature reprend ses droits, et l'homme les siens, quand au droits naturels, triste blougi-boulga.

[h16]

Au fond, le libéral serait plutôt mmmf mf mfmmmf mmf mfffmm mfm

[TODA]

Au fond, le libéral serait plutôt pour un environnementalisme laissez-fairiste ou un envirronnementalisme interventioniste ?

Faire confiance et sévir!

(faire confiance, forme positive de laisser faire, libérer l'initiative)

(sévir: faire justice,dédommager de ses torts y compris envers la nature,pollueur dé- pollueur plutôt que pollueur payeur)

Le patron de la compagnie pétrolière, ses actionnaires, l'armateur du bateau, avec pelle et seau sur la plage après une marée noire!

[Stan Selene]

La nature reprend ses droits, et l'homme les siens, quand au droits naturels, triste blougi-boulga.

Le rapport dans le contexte, c'est quoi?

[José]

Mauvaise nouvelle pour l'Église de Climatologie : "Increased Number Think Global Warming Is “Exaggerated”".

[Calembredaine]

triste blougi-boulga.

Gloubi-boulga

Vous ne connaissez même pas vos classiques, comment voulez-vous discuter sereinement avec les pointures qui interviennent ici?

Encore un Oumkapok, amateur de jeux video qui débarque en donneur de leçons

[manpow]

les pointures qui interviennent ici?

Faudrait peut-être voire à sortir un peu……..

[Calembredaine]

Faudrait peut-être voire à sortir un peu……..

Pourquoi sortir? Quelques benêts sévissent aussi sur lib.org pas besoin d'aller les chercher ailleurs.

[Lexington]

Jacob Weisber, journaliste vedette de Newsweek et figure de l'intelligentsia liberal américaine, relaie les critiques de l'alarmisme environnementaliste, considéré comme une idée reçue à remettre en cause :

Climate change will be catastrophic.

We all know civilization is doomed if we don't reduce carbon emissions, right? The physicist Freeman Dyson disagrees. Dyson doesn't dispute that human activity is causing warming. But he challenges the consensus that warming will be catastrophic. In a New York Review of Books essay, Dyson wrote that warming "is mostly making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter." Carbon emissions could make the earth more fertile and prevent harm from global cooling, which isn't caused by humans. And if it really turns out that there is a serious problem, genetically engineered carbon-eating trees might fix it. (Might.)

Source : Newsweek

Edit : traduction française sur Slate, à vos commentaires http://www.slate.fr/story/3373/r%C3%A9chau…utomobile-chine

[Lexington]

Chill winds take heat off global warming

LA Notebook: Climate change scepticism is going mainstream

Chris Ayres

Well, that didn't take long, did it? After six months of economic hardship and one unusually chilly winter, it seems that Americans are beginning to conclude that perhaps global warming wasn't such a big deal after all. Blowing $30,000 on a solar roof doesn't seem such a great move these days. And for the price of a Toyota Prius you can now buy a three-bedroomed house in Detroit with enough left for a pick-up truck (this isn't a joke - the median house price in Motor City is $7,500).

The ranks of America's “climate sceptics” have been growing quietly for some months now. And at the weekend a watershed was reached: the usually left-wing New York Times put the British-born physicist Freeman Dyson on the front of its Sunday magazine. The article inside revealed that Professor Dyson - 85 years old and based in Princeton - not only possesses one of the finest noodles on Planet Earth, but also happens to think that most of what Al Gore and his band of Unmerry Men preach amounts to little more than yuppie self-loathing.

“All the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated,” is how Professor Dyson puts it. He adds that while it's true that human-caused carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are rising, the Earth is still going through a relatively cool period in its history, and that most of the evolution of life took place in a warmer era. Professor Dyson is also fond of pointing out that carbon dioxide helps plants to grow - so having too much of the stuff hanging around might not be such a bad thing.

Out in the blogotwittersphere, the Greens can hardly believe that the same media that once helped Mr Gore to win both an Oscar and a Nobel prize are now promoting such heresy. To make matters more infuriating, Professor Dyson isn't even a conservative: he's a left-wing, Obama-voting, peace-marching, boho-academic genius who argues that coal-produced electricity has liberated millions in China from poverty, and that “greens are people who've never had to worry about grocery bills”.

Background

* Tesla Motors unveils luxury electric car

* Green Vroom

* Ministers pore over green energy incentives

* Energy plan chaos as wind giant backs out

I suspect that, as we all get used to our relative poverty over coming months and as it becomes politically impossible for President Obama to bankrupt power stations and impose carbon tariffs on imports, such scepticism will become ever more mainstream. Only last week a suggestion by California to outlaw black cars because they absorb too much heat and therefore require too much air conditioning was met with almost universal ridicule. All of which is both satisfying and unsettling - satisfying to see debate triumph over heavy-handedness, but unsettling because even if what Mr Gore was peddling was a lie, it was a convenient one, in that it seemed to be finally weaning the US off Saudi oil.

Still, honesty is always the best way.

And in America at least, it's always so much more appealing when delivered by an awkward Brit.

The Times, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/c…icle6011157.ece

[Nick de Cusa]

Hourrah pour un héros (si son récit est exact, on ne peut pas le vérifier):

Le gouvernement convoque une réunion d'agriculteurs pour leur accorder des "crédits carbone". "Farmer Steve" demande d'où vient l'argent, comprend qu'il vient de tous les gens qui consomment de l'électricité, et décide de ne pas le garder.

Si ce récit est authentique, chapeau.

Carbon Credits

I have changed my mind about participating in the carbon credit program. And have resolved to give the money I received to St Jude’s Children’s Hospital.

Here is why.

Recently I sat in the fire hall with a few dozen farmers. We had been invited to hear how we can get paid for carbon credits.

The speaker explained how their satellites can measure the carbon in our land individually and how much money we could get. Then asked for questions.

I asked “what is the source of this money”?

The presenter said it comes from big companies that pollute.

I asked “where do they get this money”? He had no answer.

So I answered for him, asking, “won’t it come from everyone who pays their power bill”? He then agreed and said “that could be”.

I then said isn’t this about the theory of man made global warming? he said “we are not going to talk about that”. Here they are on the prairie soliciting land for carbon credits tempting us with free money.

I believe that agreeing to take their money means you agree with taxing cattle gas also, because methane is a greenhouse gas 20 times more powerful than carbon. I believe taking this money without considering its source makes us no better than the bankers who lent money to people, knowing they could not pay it back. Collecting their fees then selling the bad loans in bundles to someone else. They did not care where the money came from either.

Let’s be clear.

Carbon is not a new commodity! No new wealth is being created here! Is this the way we want to make a living? Let me ask you, what if their satellites determine that your land has lost carbon? You will get a bill, not a check, right? If you make a tillage pass you will get a bill for emitting carbon, is this not correct?

It is also a fact that this income will, in short order, get built into your land cost. You will keep very little and be left with the burden of another bureaucratic program.

Let’s be honest, we feel compelled to take this money because of the need to be competitive, however we also need to hold true to our values and lead by example that means placing our principals ahead of money.

No good citizen is opposed to using the earth’s resources wisely, however, wisdom means a person who has both intelligence and humility. In my view many of the proponents of man made global warming have the first and lack the second. We are able to exercise our freedom in this country because we have abundant, reliable and affordable power. It is ironic that we sat in front of the flag in that fire hall and considered trading our liberty for money.

I’ll leave you with a quote from Roy Disney:

“Decision making becomes easier when your values are clear to you”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/10/a-fa…dits/#more-6931

[h16]

Excellent.

[Nick de Cusa]

J'avais loupé ceci.

Attention : avant de cliquer. C'est un pdf de 5 MB.

Bonne présentation, couvrant tous les aspects de la discussion en Français. A faire connaitre au delà de notre petit cercle.

http://astrosurf.com/astrocdf67/dossier_divers/climatJC.pdf

[Lexington]

Très bon.

La version française (mal doublée) du Great Global Warming Swindle est disponible sur Dailymotion http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8qxiq_re…le-mensong_tech

[Lexington]

(Sources : Futur Quantique)

Auteur ? Écrit par John Coleman

John Coleman ?

« John Coleman (born 1935) is a former British Intelligence Officer for MI6. He has written several books regarding conspiracies to create a New World Order. These books have been influential among more well known conspiracy authors such as David Icke and Jim Marrs. Coleman argues that the Muslim Brotherhood is a secret Masonic order created, with support from T. E. Lawrence, Bertrand Russell and St. John Philby, to "keep the Middle East backward so its natural resource, oil, could continue to be looted."^[1] Coleman has also criticized the Club of Rome, the Giorgio Cini Foundation, Global 2000, the Interreligious Peace Colloquium, the Tavistock Institute, and other organizations. »

FAIL.

Tu confonds avec un autre John Coleman… Pas très sérieux quand même… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Coleman_…_weathercaster)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ft8LfE7AI2w

[Lexington]

Exposed:Climate of Fear, documentaire de Glenn Beck (en 5 parties)

[Nick de Cusa]

Forte chute du nombre d'américains qui croient encore que le réchauffement est causé par l'activité humaine. Ils ne sont plus que 34%. Mais 48% des membres de l'industrie politique.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/18/only…ming/#more-7154