Key points to refutate
the climate dogma
While committed scientists refuse to debate with lay people and other scientists have been evacuated, and while scientific uncertainties have been postulated as certain by the media and political milieus, the key elements
that cause problems must be well presented.
Anyone who defames me as a climate denier will be exposed to the wrath of reason. The last heretic was burned in the 19th century, it is better to leave it there.
The reality of climate change
No doubt about it.
(if "change " is meant in its general sense)
The reality of the radiative forcing caused by so-calld greenhouse gases (GHG).
Anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and other GHGs to the atmosphere
No doubt about it.
Approximately 45% of the CO
2 emitted accumulates in the atmosphere.
La sensibilité du climat à la concentration du CO2
(et des autres gaz à effet de serre).
La fourchette de 1,5 à 4,5 °C pour un doublement du CO2 n’est pas démontrée.
La définition de ECS par le GIEC implique une instabilité inhérente du climat, ce qui n’est pas le cas.
The validity of the models used to determine this sensitivity and also to reflect all other phenomena contributing to climate change.
Models systematically overheat.
They are not valid for extrapolating climate change in 30-100 years.
The margins of uncertainty are so wide that the results only mean what you want to read.
The plausibility of prospective scenarios.
The RCP8.5 scenario is exaggerated, but it is the one that is constantly kept in mind to raise the alarm.
The "scientific consensus" among climatologists and beyond climatologists.
This consensus exists for the observations made, the validity of the physical phenomena involved, and the CO2 emission balance.
There cannot be any scientific consensus on climate sensitivity to GHG concentrations.
There can be no scientific consensus on any future projections and on any ecologistic-economic-political speculation.
Risk and benefit assessment of future climate change.
Estimates of the anticipated damage of less than 2 GDP points in 80 years do not justify the urgency of committing huge costs.
The benefits of a moderate warming are real.
Setting a objective for a climate policy.
A warming above 1.5 or 2°C is also no disaster and does not trigger any of the claimed socio-economic sacrifices.
The effectiveness of mitigation measures to "fix" the climate.
87% of the World's energy supply would need to be replaced, or tp be compensated by the definitive CO2 sequestration.
Decarbonation programs for 15 or 30 years are unrealistic. Even if successful, the climate response is very uncertain.
The appropriateness of declaring a state of emergency or talking about a climate crisis
This call is hysterical and misleading, intellectually dishonest.
This type of behaviour is not at all sustainable because public opinion eventually turns away from it.
