Open Thread Non

Jul 04, 2023

” Despite what has been written their is NO irrefutable proof that 400ppm (0.04%) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is causing so called global warming, despite claims to the contrary.” : false. Just an example, the Pliocene Climatic Optimum, whose characteristics (PRISM IV) are used as a testbed for the correction of climate modelisation (Pliomap 2), shows a comparable world with an atmospheric carbon dioxide level on the same order than today and a global temperature warmer than today as the process of transformation is not ended. Second, a bunch of articles have shown that without the introduction of carbon dioxide in atmosphere by our actions the current evolution of global temperature is not possible to explain by the natural variability (https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/09/watching-the-detections/). If not enough, the current temperature excursion is unprecedented since the beginning of the current interglacial (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03984-4). Fourth, historical models have predicted correctly the recent evolution of global temperature (the trends are correct and the variability envelopes are the same) including the first published in 1970 by Syukuro Manabe et col. (https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/10/a-nobel-pursuit/).

”The IPCC is collection of mainly bureaucrats feeding on the teat, whilst the scientific evidence that does exists is maniplulated to fit the narrative. Conclusions are drawn on dubious science. ” : false. The IPCC is mainly constituted of scientists which are doing two things and by the way, the people in charge are changed on a regular schedule. 1) Make the state of the art in several science fields concerning climate. It is a classical process of science review 2) A reading committee specific to each field examines the review work and makes corrections to this work. All of this is currently done in scientific publications but on a bigger scale in the IPCC. If you have sound scientific arguments to bring in the discussions, you have the right to make contributions. I think that this process is beyond the scope of a lot of intellectually restricted people and that the work of ipcc being felt as an intervention in the life of the world and undirectly in the life of common people is badly felt by these people, which explains the mistrust or even hatred felt toward the ipcc.

”There is a lot of good evidence that does not support the IPCC narrative. The snag is that the MSM and social media have been very effective in suppressing alternative views and suppressing peer reviews and the publishing of works that are contrary to the climate crisis supporters polemic beliefs.” Here we are speaking of conspirationism. Here you have a list of specialists to start a treatment : https://www.pagesjaunes.fr/annuaire/chercherlespros?quoiqui=psychiatre+&ou=tours&univers=pagesjaunes&idOu=

”making a switch away from oil and gas will take decades (…) and without these petrochemical derivaties you will not be able to build renewable energy sources, build a low carbon economy or even even produce toothpaste to clean your teeth.” I agree but I am afraid that the ressources will be depleted before.