Le Dérèglement Climatique Annoncé Est En Marche

[Nico]

Have you seen the Gore movie " An Inconvenient Truth " ? I have seen a analysis more interesting in this subject…

______________________________

Surely nobody would be a charlatan, who could afford to be sincere.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

The French kiss Al Gore received from the mainstream media in Cannes over his shlockumentary fiction "An Inconvenient Truth" exceeded even the chronic revulsion that is symbiotic with all things Al Gore.

The over-the-top fearmongering Gore regurgitates about "global warming" conveniently ignores far more than it presumes to expose.

1. The "debate" over global warming remains just that … a debate.

2. Not "everyone" believes in the gospel according to Gore (any more than everyone embraces Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Gaia or the Tao).

Most reports suggest the master of hyperbole did a superb job of acting and eschewed the vein-popping, mouth-frothing diatribes he is known to offer.

As Kyle Smith writes in the New York Post [http://www.nypost.com/movies/66485.htm]: "He implies that no reputable scientists dispute anything he says." BULLFEATHERS!

"His implication that he is our only hope … is ridiculous," Smith writes. According to his own PowerPoint graph, global warming got worse during the time he and the Clintons were in charge. Now THERE is an "inconvenient truth," Al.

Several years ago I interviewed Dr. Fred Singer, former director of the National Weather Satellite Center and author of "Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate." [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=19633]

Singer points out that "the atmosphere changes." Sure, there is global warming; however, there is also global cooling. In the last century we had:

a warming trend before 1940;

a cooling trend between 1940 and 1975;

a warming trend between 1975 and 1980;

and essentially NO trend for the last 20 years.

Real scientists tell us the sun has an 11-year cycle and you "clearly see this in some of the temperature records."

Proponents of Al's fiction often cite the list of "2,500 scientists" who subscribe to the Gore concept of global warming.

Singer says: "That is not really true. You hear about 2,500 scientists who worked on this report for the United Nations. First of all, the number is less than 2,000 and secondly, of these, perhaps 100 are qualified to say something about the climate … and they have never been polled." [my emphasis]

On the other side of the coin (which you never hear about), there are some 17,000 for-real scientists who say global warming is a hoax. And 17,000 "actually signed a petition against the Kyoto protocol."

When I told Dr. Singer that there is no unanimity within the scientific community about global warming, he replied, "That is the point … that there is a debate going on … and the public is entitled to know that there is a debate and that the debate is not finished."

Al Gore would have everyone believe the gospel according to HIM because he says so. Facts that contradict HIS preconceived opinions and prejudice are heresy. Science that refutes his spin is frankly just to be ignored … as an "inconvenient Truth." By the way, for those short-term memory sufferers, Al Gore also said

He took the initiative to create the Internet … although the Internet was operating before he even made it to Congress. "I've been a part of the discussions on the strategic reserve since the days when it was first established." President Ford established the Strategic Petroleum Reserves on December 22, 1975 – two years before Al Gore became a congressman

Why does Gore do and say such inimitably foolish (and easily refuted) stuff? Maybe Mason Cooley nailed it when he said: "Vanity well fed is benevolent. Vanity hungry is spiteful." And with or without the extra pounds or beard, Al Gore's vanity is ravenous.

Once upon a time the California Environmental Protection Agency had instructed scientists to destroy data that did not conform to policy. [http://www.ibiblio.org/london/agriculture/forums/sustainable-agriculture2/msg02664.html] Singer wasn't aware of the data destruction, "But I am aware of the fact that people neglect to mention data that disagrees with their biased view."

He referenced the U.N. report. The summary doesn't say ‘Jack' about weather satellites collecting data about the atmosphere. One would think that weather satellites are the most important data-gathering instrument we have. It is the only thing that collects data on a worldwide basis. The fact that satellites are collecting data is not even mentioned.

You know why? Because the satellite data shows that the atmosphere is NOT warming. THAT is why is not even mentioned. And yes, that is a for-real empirical "inconvenient truth."

Al Gore is a charlatan – a dangerous evangelist proselytizing a manufactured fiction to enable a personal dream quest to recreate a sum far greater than the intrinsic parts.

Steven Vizinczey once said, "And so hubris turns to false certainties, everyone expects to be a winner, and each morning is a mind-blowing surprise."

"Inconvenient Truth," indeed.

[tzecoatl]

Sans plébisciter les théories des climatolologues, je vois plutôt d'un bon oeil les mutations des secteurs énergétiques, au lieu d'être pendu aux uniques cours du pétrole, qui comme on le sait, sont fortement corrélés à la situation géopolitique dans des régions trop instables, dont certains tel Al Qaïdoil prennent un malin plaisir à essayer de rompre les approvisionements.

D'autant plus que l'augmentation des débouchés agricoles devrait résoudre certains problèmes de surproduction alimentaire, permettant ainsi aux brésiliens par exemple de développer leur économie sans détruire l'économie agricole européenne ou américaine, et aux US ou peut-être à la Chine de devenir un peu moins âpres dans leurs stratégies à s'assurer les ressources pétrolières orientales, avec les catastrophes géopolitiques que l'on connait (Irak, etc).

Si les Poutine, les Chavez ou les Saoud peuvent se permettre un peu ce qu'ils veulent avec leurs avantages naturels, les biocarburants permettent de mettre un bémol à leur royalisme outrancier.

Et si rajouter 10% de biocarburants réduit 30% d'émission de CO2 dans les transports (je me demande par quelle magie du saint esprit source :

http://www.libe.fr/actualite/terre/199994.FR.php ),

il est préférable de laisser cette mutation du secteur énergétique se faire, au bénéfice du doute concernant l'impact climatique, non ?

[miniTAX]

il est préférable de laisser cette mutation du secteur énergétique se faire, au bénéfice du doute concernant l'impact climatique, non ?

Réduire la dépendance énergétique en faisant du biocarburant ce qui au passage résorbe nos excédents agricoles, c'est une bonne chose. Mais ce n'est pas pour autant qu'il faut le justifier par l'argument fallacieux du réchauffement climatique.

On ne justifie pas une bonne cause par de mauvaises raisons qui conduisent d'ailleurs à de mauvais moyens : le gouvernement, au lieu de laisser "la mutation se faire" comme tu dis, ce qui favoriserait le biodiesel et aurait fait beugler sa bonne vache à lait habituelle, à savoir la TIPP, nous prépare une prochaine taxe du carbone qu'il a de grande chance de faire passer en douce pour maintenir son train de vie.

Bénéfice du doute, non merci !