par Joe Oliver, Financial Post, Canada, publié le 2/07/2024

SCE (avant propos): Un des buts majeurs de SCE est l’analyse critique de la science climatologique. Nous ne sommes bien entendu pas les seuls, et force est de constater que l’information dans ce domaine est très partiale, les analyses et/ou opinions, souvent bien argumentées par des scientifiques reconnus, sont passées sous silence. C’est hélas une manière efficace d’étouffer le débat sur le sujet.

SCE met à disposition de ses lecteurs un texte soumis en novembre 2023 à la Cour de La Haye par trois scientifiques américains remettant en cause les principes de base des politiques de réduction nette des émissions de CO₂. Ce texte vient d’être publié le 2 juillet 2024 dans le Financial Post. Il n’a pas été beaucoup (pas du tout ?) diffusé dans nos médias habituels. Et pour cause ?

Nous espérons qu’il sera diffusé.  

Ci-dessous le début du texte, et le lien vers la version complète (.pdf)

A submission to the Hague Court by three distinguished U.S. scientists challenges the basic premises of net-zero policies targeting CO₂

An expert opinion, submitted pro bono last November to the Hague Court of Appeals by three eminent American scientists, presents a devastating refutation of climate catastrophism.

Their conclusions contradict alarmists’ sacred beliefs, including that anthropogenic carbon dioxide will cause dangerous climate change, thus obliterating the desirability, let alone the need, for net-zero policies that by 2050 would inflict US$275 trillion in useless expenditures on wealthy countries and harm the poorest people in the world’s poorest economies.

Predictably, the study has been ignored by mainstream media.

The three scientists are:

1. Richard Lindzen, emeritus professor of Earth, atmospheric & planetary sciences at MIT;
2. William Happer, emeritus professor of physics at Princeton; and
3. Steven Koonin, professor at NYU, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution & author of the 2021 book: Unsettled: What climate science tells us, what it doesn’t, and why it matters.

Although seriously outnumbered in their views, they are not alone. John Clauser, who won the physics Nobel in 2022, has said “The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people.”

The foundation for three scientists’ opinion is, not surprisingly, the Scientific Method, which Richard Feynman (1918-88), theoretical physicist and 1965 Nobelist, defined with trademark clarity: “It doesn’tmatter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”

To be reliable, science must be based on observations consistent with predictions, rather than consensus, peer reviews, opinions of government-controlled bodies like the IPCC & definitely not cherry- picked, exaggerated or falsified data. The paper makes the point colloquially: “Peer review of the climate literature is a joke. It is pal review.”

As Michael Crichton pithily pointed out, however, “If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it is science, it isn’t consensus.”

• Lien vers le .pdf