Aller au contenu

Réchauffement climatique

Jérôme

Messages recommandés

ModernGuy

ModernGuy

Posté
Posté
  Le 21/05/2014 à 09:46, h16 a dit :

Et au fait, vous savez qu'il ne nous reste que 500 jours ? C'est fafa qui le dit.

http://h16free.com/2014/05/21/31230-les-500-jours-de-laurent-fabius

J'y vois l'aveu d'une défaite. Idéologique de notre point de vue (comprendre : "on n'a pas réussi à convaincre avec cette histoire de RCA, on a 500 jours trouver autre chose"), et defaite politique du point de vue rechauffiste/constructiviste ("on n'a pas pas réussi à imposer notre point de vue et nos politiques malthusiennes, et les mesures coercitives seront désormais justifees par un discours plus axé sur la gestion des prétendues conséquences que sur les causes.

ph11

ph11

Posté
Posté

-Voilà, c'est sur, il y a réchauffement. Cette année, il fait chaud.

-Mais les années précédentes, il faisait froid !!

-Mais ça, ça comptait pas.

-Pourquoi ?

-Parce que, on te dis ! Et arrête de poser des questions ! Sinon…

 

On va donc tous mourir…

TYRION

TYRION

Posté
Posté

Ouais ben en tous cas je me les caille sévère en ce joli moi de mai! On va bientôt tous mourir de froid au rythme où ce réchauffement s'inverse.

ph11

ph11

Posté
Posté
  Le 24/05/2014 à 07:16, Nick de Cusa a dit :

Science fait sa Une sur Piketty.

 

Huet en profite pour faire un article éco.

 

La boucle est bouclée.

 

Et après, ils viennent se plaindre lorsque des économistes viennent réfuter leurs modèles climatiques…

 

Hayek's plosive

Hayek's plosive

Posté
Posté
  Citation

 

Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent."

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out "dangerous"—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers.

Getty Images/Imagezoo

Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in "Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union" by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master's thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed "97 percent of climate scientists agree" that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe "anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming." There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch —most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.

Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

Finally, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that "human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems." Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing "anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing."

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

Mr. Bast is president of the Heartland Institute. Dr. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite.

 

poney

poney

Posté
Posté

C'est parce que....

 

 

(reçu à l'instant dans ma boite)

 

  Citation

 

Call for Papers
Local Cultural Responses to the Economic Challenges of Climate Change: Anthropological Investigations (provisional title)
 
(Research in Economic Anthropology, Volume 35)
 
 
Research in Economic Anthropology (REA) is a peer-reviewed book series focusing on the anthropological investigation of economy and culture/society, including both contemporary socio-cultural (“ethnographic”) and archaeological approaches. It was first published in 1978 by JAI Press and edited by George Dalton. The next editor was Barry Isaac, who managed the series for nearly 20 years. Elsevier later acquired REA, and the editorial team of Norbert Dannhaeuser and Cynthia Werner kept it on track during this transition. Since 2005 the series has been edited by Donald Wood, and it is currently owned by Emerald Group Publishing, Ltd.
 
Anthropological papers with an economic focus that deal with local cultural contributions and adaptations to climate change are now being sought for Volume 35 of REA, scheduled for publication in 2015. Although a broad range of articles and essays can be accepted for consideration, preference will be granted to manuscripts that draw on original ethnographic research (i.e., empirical case studies).
 
❉ Deadline: Sept. 1, 2014 ❉
 
It is becoming increasingly difficult to deny that human activity is a factor in global climate change. This special volume of REA does not seek to confirm this so much as it attempts to better understand the ways in which people around the world have adapted (or failed to adapt) culturally to changing economic conditions caused by climate change. It will focus on specific situations in particular locations, showcasing (and confirming) the strength and value of intensive ethnographic—or archaeological—investigation. Questions it will attempt to answer include (but are not limited to): 1) How has climate change affected production, distribution, or consumption at the local level? 2) Are environmental conservation and economic development mutually exclusive? 3) What roles can public and private institutions play in successful adaptation? 4) What kinds of parallels can be drawn between current social situations and those in the past with regards to climate change?
 
In principle, submissions should be under 10,000 words and sent electronically as MS Word files. Initial submissions should be double-spaced, and all images/figures (with captions) need to be included in the document. A structured abstract of 100-150 words is also needed, and all works cited should be included in a references section at the end. Self-identification should be avoided if possible.

 

h16

h16

Posté
Posté

"It is becoming increasingly difficult to deny that human activity is a factor in global climate change."

Dans le sens "celui qui ose prétendre l'inverse sera tabassé" ou dans le sens "toutes les preuves montre que ..." ?

Quelle bande de rigolos.

VeloDeus

VeloDeus

Posté
Posté

La plupart des sceptiques les plus proéminents sont essentiellement d'accord avec la phrase en gras

(tout le problème est le degré de contribution des activités humaines au réchauffement observé).

Malky

Malky

Posté
Posté
  Le 02/06/2014 à 18:41, VeloDeus a dit :

 

 

C'est quand même curieux un gonz' taggé "habitué" dont l'avatar affiche fièrement un casque de cycliste sur un forum fréquenté par Lucilio.

 

Enfin bon, jdcjdr hein :mrgreen:

VeloDeus

VeloDeus

Posté
Posté
  Le 02/06/2014 à 18:45, Malky a dit :

C'est quand même curieux un gonz' taggé "habitué" dont l'avatar affiche fièrement un casque de cycliste sur un forum fréquenté par Lucilio.

 

Enfin bon, jdcjdr hein :mrgreen:

 

Respect des anciens, peut-être ...

Cugieran

Cugieran

Posté
Posté
  Le 02/06/2014 à 18:41, VeloDeus a dit :

La plupart des sceptiques les plus proéminents sont essentiellement d'accord avec la phrase en gras

(tout le problème est le degré de contribution des activités humaines au réchauffement observé).

 

Oui on peut jouer sur les mots mais c'est clairement pas dans ce sens que c'est écrit.

Lancelot

Lancelot

Posté
Posté
  Le 02/06/2014 à 19:46, cugieran a dit :

Oui on peut jouer sur les mots mais c'est clairement pas dans ce sens que c'est écrit.

Et donc les chercheurs en sciences sociales sont des gros trolls. Ce qui ne devrait être une surprise pour personne.
poney

poney

Posté
Posté

Si les papiers décortiquent les adaptations des zones qui se désertifient, des zones ou l'eau à monté d'1m, ... ça peut être intéressant.

Ce qui sera comique c'est le probableme axiome : "regardez comment le néoliberamlism captalisme à tout niqué".

 

Encore que le REA n'est plus autant marxiste qu'il ne l'était il y a 30 ans, à la grande époque du marxisme.

Frenhofer

Frenhofer

Posté
Posté

propagande...

c'est libe mais quand même, là c'est trop

http://www.liberation.fr/economie/2014/06/01/nier-le-rechauffement-est-immoral_1031412

A Harvard, il y a aussi des marxos...

 

  Citation

 

Paradoxalement, ce que vous appelez le «fondamentalisme de marché» rendra inéluctable une intervention massive de l’Etat… Tout ce que les néolibéraux abhorrent ! C’est si ironique : ils empêchent toute prévention, donc le problème empire et la probabilité augmente de devoir recourir aux pouvoirs publics pour faire face aux catastrophes naturelles et aux émeutes de la faim, endiguer les épidémies, relocaliser les réfugiés climatiques. Des régimes autoritaires et centralisés comme celui de la Chine seront mieux équipés pour cela.

 

Tramp

Tramp

Posté
Posté

Ce qui m'énerve le plus c'est que s'il y a des fans des taxes carbones et autres bidules du genre, ce sont biens les néolibéraux.

Elphyr

Elphyr

Posté
Posté

J'ai mis du temps à comprendre le mot "coauteure".

L'article vaut pas grand chose. J'allais m'énerver, mais à un moment la pitié prend la place de la colère.

ph11

ph11

Posté
Posté
  Le 04/06/2014 à 12:48, tomrobo a dit :

propagande...

c'est libe mais quand même, là c'est trop

http://www.liberation.fr/economie/2014/06/01/nier-le-rechauffement-est-immoral_1031412

A Harvard, il y a aussi des marxos...

  Citation

 

Si j’étais dirigeante du monde,…

Rien que ça…

  Citation

 

…j’imposerais une taxe carbone sur tous les biens et services. Cela enverrait au marché un signal clair reflétant la réalité des coûts et inciterait les compagnies à se détourner des énergies fossiles. Ensuite, j’investirais la moitié des fonds générés dans l’efficacité énergétique et les énergies renouvelables,…

yakafokon…

 

  Citation

 

…et l’autre moitié dans l’éducation des femmes. Et ces dernières trouveraient le moyen de résoudre le reste du problème !

En plus, féminazie…

Elphyr

Elphyr

Posté
Posté

C'est ce genre de personnes que tu vois tous les jours dans les commentaires Contrepoints :)

Lancelot

Lancelot

Posté
Posté
  Le 04/06/2014 à 18:32, Elphyr a dit :

C'est ce genre de personnes que tu vois tous les jours dans les commentaires Contrepoints :)

:(

Créer un compte ou se connecter pour commenter

Vous devez être membre afin de pouvoir déposer un commentaire

Créer un compte

Créez un compte sur notre communauté. C’est facile !

Créer un nouveau compte

Se connecter

Vous avez déjà un compte ? Connectez-vous ici.

Connectez-vous maintenant
Aller sur la liste des sujets
×
×
  • Créer...