Paris climate 2015

Gisteren schonk ik aandacht aan het collectief van klimaatrealisten in Frankrijk, dat op 3 september jl. werd opgericht. Onafhankelijk van dit initiatief, maar bijna gelijktijdig, publiceerde een groep Franse wetenschappers, verbonden aan een particuliere organisatie, ‘Société de Calcul Mathématique SA’, onder leiding van de Franse wiskundige Bernard Beauzamy, een rapport (in het Engels) getiteld: ‘The battle against global warming: an absurd, costly and pointless crusade’. Dit rapport beslaat 195 (!) bladzijden. De hoofdauteur, Beauzamy, behoort tot de intellectuele elite van Frankrijk en is voormalig professor aan de Universiteit van Lyon.

Het is een hybride werkstuk dat bestaat uit een filippica tegen AGW (AGW = ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’) en het daaruit voortvloeiende klimaatbeleid, alsmede een uitvoerige, degelijke en kritische verhandeling van de klimaatproblematiek, die best als primer voor klimatologiestudenten zou kunnen dienen.

Aan het meer polemische gedeelte van het rapport ontleen ik de volgende passages:

There is not a single fact, figure or observation that leads us to conclude that the world‘s climate is in any way ‘disturbed’. It is variable, as it has always been, but rather less so now than during certain periods or geological eras.’

Rising sea levels are a normal phenomenon linked to upthrust buoyancy; they are nothing to do with so-called global warming. As for extreme weather events – they are no more frequent now than they have been in the past.

We are fighting for a cause (reducing CO2 emissions) that serves absolutely no purpose, in which we alone believe, and which we can do nothing about. You would probably have to go quite a long way back in human history to find such a mad obsession.

Modern methods are far from being able to accurately measure the planet‘s global temperature even today, so measurements made 50  or 100 years ago are even less reliable. Concentrations of CO2 vary, as they always have done; the figures that are being released are biased and dishonest. Rising sea levels are a normal phenomenon linked to upthrust buoyancy; they are nothing to do with so-called global warming. As for extreme weather events – they are no more frequent now than they have been in the past. We ourselves have processed the raw data on hurricanes. We are being told that ‘a temperature increase of more than 2ºC by comparison with the beginning of the industrial age would have dramatic consequences, and absolutely has to be prevented‘. When they hear this, people worry: hasn‘t there already been an increase of 1.9ºC? Actually, no: the figures for the period 1995-2015 show an upward trend of about 1ºC every hundred years! Of course, these figures, which contradict public policies, are never brought to public attention.

Direct aid for industries that are completely unviable (such as photovoltaics and wind turbines) but presented as ‘virtuous’ runs into billions of euros, according to recent reports published by the Cour des Comptes (French Audit Office) in 2013. But the highest cost lies in the principle of ‘energy saving‘, which is presented as especially virtuous. Since no civilization can develop when it is saving energy, ours has stopped developing: France now has more than three million people unemployed – it is the price we have to pay for our virtue. We want to cut our CO2 emissions at any cost: it is a way of displaying our virtue for all to see. To achieve these reductions, we have significantly cut industrial activity and lost jobs.

But at least we have achieved our aim of cutting CO2 emissions, haven‘t we? The answer is laughable: apparently not. Global emissions of CO2 have continued to rise, including those generated by France in designing and manufacturing its own products, as the Cour des Comptes clearly states. Quite simply, manufacturing that is held to be environmentally damaging has been relocated. So the same products are now being manufactured in countries that are far less respectful of the environment, and we have lost all the associated jobs.

Human beings cannot, in any event, change the climate. If we in France were to stop all industrial activity (let‘s not talk about our intellectual activity, which ceased long ago), if we were to eradicate all trace of animal life, the composition of the atmosphere would not alter in any measurable, perceptible way. ….

French policy on CO2 emissions is particularly stupid, since we are one of the countries with the cleanest industrial sector. International agreements on the subject began with the Kyoto Protocol, but the number of countries signing up to this agreement and its descendants are becoming fewer and fewer, now representing just 15% of emissions of greenhouse gases. This just goes to show the truth of the matter: we are fighting for a cause (reducing CO2 emissions) that serves absolutely no purpose, in which we alone believe, and which we can do nothing about. You would probably have to go quite a long way back in human history to find such a mad obsession.

De rest van het rapport is minder polemisch met uitstekende en kritische beschrijvingen van de verschillende elementen waarop de aandacht van de klimatologie zich richt. Het bevat indrukwekkende literatuurlijsten.

Thema’s zijn onder meer: de temperatuurmetingen (met hun correcties en hun tekortkomingen), CO2 (sterk variabel en plaatselijk verschillend) en de koolstofcyclus (nog veel onbekend), cyclonen (geen toename), de rijzende zeespiegel (geen acceleratie), albedo (nog veel onbekend), aeroselen (idem dito) enz. enz.

Als wiskundige is Beauzamy natuurlijk extra gekwalificeerd om een oordeel te vellen over de mogelijkheden en grenzen van klimaatmodellen, waarover hij vele behartenswaardige opmerkingen maakt. Dat geldt ook voor de toepassing van de wetenschappelijke methode, waaraan André Bijkerk op dit blog nog onlangs aandacht heeft geschonken. Het zal geen verwondering wekken dat hun benadering grote overeenkomst vertoont.

Wat de IPCC–rapporten betreft merken Beauzamy et al op:

 … no sensible, high-quality journal would publish the IPPC‘s work. The IPPC‘s conclusions go against observed facts; the figures used are deliberately chosen to support its conclusions (with no regard for the most basic scientific honesty), and the natural variability of phenomena is passed over without comment.

Oei!

Lees verder hier.

Al met al aanbevolen voor fanatieke klimatofielen van alle gezindten (maar het is een hele kluif, dus lezing vergt uithoudingsvermogen).

Voor mijn eerdere bijdragen over klimaat en aanverwante zaken zie hierhier, hier, hier en hier.

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email