Forum

J’aime votre site pour sa lucidité, c’est un plaisir d’y trouver tous les jours des informations qui sortent des ornières. Mais pourquoi avez-vous pour le climat une position tellement conservatrice. Ne vous rendez-vous pas compte que la Convention de Kyoto est la plus grande arnaque de tous les temps. Un canular gigantesque. Ressaissiez-vous!
J’ai écrit récemment plusieurs articles sur le sujet, mais ils sont en allemand.
Certains se trouvent dans la section francaise de http://www.mitosyfraudes.org.
Un grand-ducal qui vous veut du bien.

Faut-il croire tous ceux qui s’expriment sur le climat ?

http://www.manicore.com/documentation/serre/ouvrages/calembredaines.html

Périodiquement, des personnes signent des articles ou des livres, généralement virulents, exposant que toute cette affaire de réchauffement n’est qu’une chimère de scientifiques et que le plus urgent est de ne pas prêter attention à toutes ces mises en garde. Ils ajoutent souvent que de lutter contre le changement climatique va “coûter très cher” et donc que nous devrions nous dépêcher de nous occuper d’autre chose.
Jean-Marc Jancovici vous propose ici quelques commentaires sur quelques unes de ces publications.

Jean-Marc Jancovici est un ingénieur polytechnicien français, expert climatique et consultant auprès de divers organismes publics ou privés. Il est connu pour son travail de vulgarisation et de sensibilisation sur le changement climatique, l’effet de serre, et la crise énergétique. (Wikipedia)

—————————-

The Guardian Sept.19, 2006 The denial industry. George Monbiot

For years, a network of fake citizens’ groups and bogus scientific bodies has been claiming that science of global warming is inconclusive. They set back action on climate change by a decade. But who funded them? Exxon’s involvement is well known, but not the strange role of Big Tobacco. In the first of three extracts from his new book, George Monbiot tells a bizarre and shocking new story

ExxonMobil is the world’s most profitable corporation. Its sales now amount to more than $1bn a day. It makes most of this money from oil, and has more to lose than any other company from efforts to tackle climate change. To safeguard its profits, ExxonMobil needs to sow doubt about whether serious action needs to be taken on climate change. But there are difficulties: it must confront a scientific consensus as strong as that which maintains that smoking causes lung cancer or that HIV causes Aids. So what’s its strategy?

The website http://www.Exxonsecrets.org, using data found in the company’s official documents, lists 124 organisations that have taken money from the company or work closely with those that have. These organisations take a consistent line on climate change: that the science is contradictory, the scientists are split, environmentalists are charlatans, liars or lunatics, and if governments took action to prevent global warming, they would be endangering the global economy for no good reason. The findings these organisations dislike are labelled “junk science”. The findings they welcome are labelled “sound science”.

Among the organisations that have been funded by Exxon are such well-known websites and lobby groups as TechCentralStation, the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. Some of those on the list have names that make them look like grassroots citizens’ organisations or academic bodies: the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, for example. One or two of them, such as the Congress of Racial Equality, are citizens’ organisations or academic bodies, but the line they take on climate change is very much like that of the other sponsored groups. While all these groups are based in America, their publications are read and cited, and their staff are interviewed and quoted, all over the world.

By funding a large number of organisations, Exxon helps to create the impression that doubt about climate change is widespread. For those who do not understand that scientific findings cannot be trusted if they have not appeared in peer-reviewed journals, the names of these institutes help to suggest that serious researchers are challenging the consensus…