The climate issue is far from being resolved as some would have us believe: neither as to its causes and effects, nor as to the measures to be taken, or not to be taken.
The climate has been changing continuously
since the Earth first existed, and we are afraid of any change.
Being exposed to an avalanche of information and opinions from authorities claiming to tell me what to think and do, I preferred to take time
to understand what was going on, and to forge my own opinion.
I propose it here in complete independence.
Whoever wants to verify what I write can do so, at the cost of time and attention. The others are
asked to trust me and share my opinion. Please take a close look, it is far from being conventional or banal.
If this exercise helps to enlighten others, then it will have served more than once.
Breaking temperature news
OpenClimate can be observed by physical parameters similar to those used to characterize weather, but they must be monitored over a much longer period of time, centuries and millennia. Only statistical analyses of long series can identify whether variations indicate significant changes or not.
To understand how parameters interact, it is necessary to refer to established laws of physics and chemistry, or to propose new ones if there is sufficient evidence to establish them. In climate studies, the main focus is on matter and heat exchanges as well as on electromagnetic radiation.
Climate systems are chaotic, non-linear and highly intertwined. No single solution can be obtained by a combination of all the relevant equations. This is why models can be useful to get closer to reality and to test various scenarios. However, they cannot be used to produce in silico narratives or to make scientific discoveries.
The climate controversy revolves around four tenets:
The use of models to "do science" is abusive. Comparing the results of various algorithms between them only shows their differences and does not allow them to be averaged to establish a so-called "truth".
Overall, the models are overheating, i.e. the results of their calculations greatly exceed the instrumental observations.
Despite these obvious deficiencies, models are used to extrapolate and make projections by simulating scenarios that are more or less realistic.
My personal position is neither climato-credulous nor sceptical. I categorically reject the defamatory denomination of climate denier.
I have no fundamental doubts about the observed facts and the underlying phenomena.
However, many prophecies are not plausible. There is a great contradiction between the resilience that climate systems have shown in history and the call for general mobilization for a "state of climate emergency".
The announcements of future disasters are dishonest and based on the most exaggerated scenarios, while economists estimate the negative effects of climate change at only ~2% of income at the end of this century. By a mandate of the United Nations, the positive effects are systematically ignored.
Mitigation policies (first and foremost decarbonation) are being promulgated that are futile, extremely costly and also unfair in the face of the world's development priorities.
Adaptation strategies should be
preferred.
The vast scientific uncertainties must not be swept away by mediato-political certainties.
If it is reasonable, over time, for society to be weaned from fossil fuels, it is illusory to decree it immediately, without realistic solutions, and criminal to want to do so at all costs.
The causa climatica is not about a matter of a few degrees but rather about taking all of humanity hostage, for ideological purposes by some or as opportunities by others.
This site was created with the Nicepage
