Taxe carbone : éviter « l’usine à gaz contre les effets de serre »

Walden,

"Les arguments contraires (invoquant comme cause exclusive l’activité solaire) existent mais demeurent ultra-minoritaires ; ils semblent ne pas prendre en compte tous les éléments, notamment l’accroissement particulièrement rapide des effets du réchauffement sur l’écosystème, qui apparaît fortement corrélé à l’augmentation des émissions de gazs à effet de serre d’origine anthropique."

Tout est faux dans ce paragraphe.

Concernant la corrélation entre émission de GES et évolution de la température au XXe siècle ; loin d’être forte, la corrélation est inexistante (cf. le premier graphique de cette page).

Les sceptiques ne sont pas minoritaires parmi les scientifiques. Ca, c’est ce que le GIEC et les médias voudraient vous faire croire.

Ainsi, un sondage a été effectué au Canada et sur 51.000 scientifiques sondés, 68% se sont déclarés sceptiques (lien).

Sur cette page, on peut lire que plus de 700 scientifiques, certains de très haut niveau comme le Prix Nobel de physique Ivar Giaever, ont signé un rapport pour dénoncer le RCA (réchauffement climatique anthropique). Parmi eux, le propre superviseur scientifique de James Hansen (le « pape » du RCA) à la NASA. Voici quelques citations (en anglais, GIEC s’écrit IPCC) :

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit ; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.

“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.

“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken...Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” - Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.

“Nature’s regulatory instrument is water vapor : more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming ? For how many years must cooling go on ?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” - South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.” - Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

En France, le grand climatologue Marcel Leroux, décédé récemment, était un sceptique. Aux Etats-Unis, Richard Lindzen, titulaire de la chaire de climatologie du MIT, est aussi un sceptique.

S’il devait y avoir un consensus parmi les scientifiques, il serait dans l’autre sens, celui des sceptiques.

Je ne commenterai pas votre dernière phrase, qui semble un voeu pieux.

Mais seulement le diagramme. L’échelle choisie ne permet pas de mettre en évidence le décalage qui peut aller jusqu’à 800 ans entre l’augmention des températures et l’augmentation des GES, les températures précédant l’augmention des GES.
D’autre part, on note de nombreuses autres augmentations des GES, qui ne peuvent être expliqués par l’activité anthropique.
L’explication la plus simple de ce diagramme est donc qu’un réchauffement conduit à une augmentation des GES par, par exemple, dégazage des océans : plus l’eau est chaude, moins elle est capable de retenir des gaz dissous.
De plus, le fait que les précédentes augmentations de GES n’aient conduit à aucun emballement semble indiquer qu’il existe des rétroactions négatives.

@ Walden,

Il n’y presque rien à ajouter au commentaire du Péripate, qui est exact et clair (comme d’habitude sur ce sujet - clin d’œil).

Sur le lien du CNRS, je suis étonné de trouver encore cette courbe, qui date de 1999, alors qu’il a été montré en 2003 qu’il existe un décalage d’environ 800 ans entre la montée des températures (d’abord) et l’augmentation de la concentration de CO2 dans l’atmosphère (ensuite) (lire le début de cette page et voir le 3e graphique). Ce décalage n’est contesté par personne à ma connaissance. Donc, la causalité ne peut pas être dans le sens CO2 => température. La page du CNRS que vous citez devrait mentionner ce fait pour respecter l’objectivité et la neutralité scientifique habituelles. Vous pouvez constater que cette objectivité n’est pas respectée quand il s’agit du RCA.

"Je sais bien qu’il existe de nombreux sceptiques : il n’empêche qu’au sein de la communauté scientifique mondiale, ils sont très minoritaires."

Je croyais pourtant, dans mon long commentaire précédent, avoir démontré le contraire (cf. le sondage canadien en particulier).