LIE CLIMATIC HEATING

TO HUMAN ACTIVITIES OR

WIDE SMOOTHING OF COP 21 ?

that there was' no causal relationship, physically based, proven and quantified (...) established between the evolution of temperature (rise, but also decline) and the variation of the greenhouse effect by CO2.

A fortiori, no relationship is demonstrated between human activities and the climate: the man is in no way responsible for climate change. "(NRH, 2007, n ° 31).

Moreover, the fluctuations of the climate have always marked the long history of humanity, passing from more or less icy periods to more or less temperate periods.
How then to understand this high mass of 176 countries gathered in Paris - at great cost to the French taxpayer - trying to find an agreement against global warming linked to human activities?

For all these countries, it would be necessary to reduce the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, as well as those of some other greenhouse gases - methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and CFC- due to man, guilty that they would be warming our planet ...

It is that an intergovernmental panel on climate change (the IPCC) was created by the United Nations in 1988. It has concocted a synthesis of various

scientific studies on this issue. His latest and fourth report, based on more than 2,500 scientists from 130 countries, concludes that global warming since 1950 is most likely due to the rise in anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

In addition, a study published late 2012 has assembled and compared simulations from 20 different computer models in this direction. These climate modulations added to information from satellite observations by a team of US climatologists would have led to the conclusion that human activities were at the origin of the change in the temperature of the troposphere and the stratosphere.

-the oceans produce 80 gigatonnes of CO2, the vegetation 13 while humans produce only 7. A drop of water in the ocean.

-the sun is the most important source of heat. The flow of radiation from the Sun - mainly visible light and near-infrared radiation - heats the Earth. The climate depends on it.

-While even assuming that the global surface temperature is likely to increase by an additional 1.6 ° to 4 ° C in the 21st century, as climate model projections would seem to predict, it remains that the tiny part of man's production of carbon dioxide hardly interferes with global warming. The man would come to disappear that our planet would warm anyway!

Of course we can not question the general climate change. The latter is already noticeable in extreme weather events. Our planet suffers more and more heat waves, droughts, floods due to exceptional floods, tornadoes ... Global warming will accelerate, but it does not have a human origin. Even more disconcerting the existence of periods of glaciation with a high rate of CO2 when man did not exist!

Consequently, there is no need to make men feel too guilty.

Moreover, the only controversy over the melting of the Kilimanjaro glacier that lost 82% of its glacier during the twentieth century and could disappear in 2020 poses the problem of the impartiality of IPCC analyzes.

Some climate scientists attribute it to a decrease in snowfall since the 19th century, while others believe that the ice of Kilimanjaro having withstood a long drought 4000 years ago is melting because of global warming.

"It is premature to say that Himalayan glaciers are backing up abnormally due to global warming. A glacier is influenced by a variety of physical factors and a complex interconnection of climatic factors. "Says a recognized scientist.

In addition, an error concerning the date of melting of the Himalayan glaciers in the 900-page IPCC 2007 report knowingly retained when it was reported by a member of the Institute of Glaciology in 2006 discredited the respect of the validation procedures.

Climate-skeptics shouted at the manipulation of numbers. The broad scientific consensus has collapsed.

Why demonize at this point global warming?

There is no doubt that it is a question of making adherence by all means and, even passing by the caricature and the demonization, the populations. The Machiavellianism of rulers, ecologists and unscrupulous industrialists is certainly part of this logic.

So the question is who benefits from the crime?

New industries using new technologies such as wind power, solar energy, biofuels, electric cars, carbon sequestration, etc. are being developed as a result of IPCC alarm sirens; Protocols have been accepted by many countries, such as the Rio Protocol in 1992 and the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. As a result, the world's economy, which is essentially based on oil and other fossil fuels, is fiercely competing with these new clean energy technologies. . This causes significant political tensions and conflicts of interest.

No wonder that global warming is becoming the stumbling block between industrialists with conflicting interests and between different countries of the world.

In addition to new industries using new technologies to avoid emitting greenhouse gases, the nuclear industry that evokes a production of "clean" electricity is doing well. As for the oil industries, they handle the double language .

What about different nations?

It is also the division and the confrontation which lead the debates on the question of the global warming. Indeed if, in the concert of the nations, no one does not really dispute the physical laws involved in the global warming, the reduction of the Greenhouse gas in human activities is not self-evident.

This is because the interests of different countries do not necessarily converge.

The United States emits 25% of greenhouse gases. China emits the same percentage, but represents a reduced rate of emission if it is reduced to the number of inhabitants.

Globally, the richest countries are minority in number of inhabitants, but emit more greenhouse gases than the emerging countries and the most disadvantaged countries. Nevertheless the ratio (CO2 / $ of GDP) is very variable, some developed countries are relatively efficient (Japan, France, Switzerland, Nordic countries) and others rather average (United States for example) whereas much less developed countries emit a lot of CO2 (ex-USSR in particular). These data show that economic growth does not necessarily lead to an increase in releases and that there is significant room for improvement in many countries, without affecting the comfort of life of the inhabitants.

Nations are divided over policies to limit greenhouse gas emissions. The European Union is generally in favor of the fight against global warming, with the notable exception of the Czech Republic and its President Vaclav Klaus, the United States, Australia, India have long been reluctant judging these costly and insufficiently scientifically sound limitation policies. Russia, Canada, China were until then the least enthusiastic.

Certainly the COP21 ...

Even if this is the case, is it reasonable to stop the current efforts of the international community to reduce CO2 emissions into the atmosphere by giving in to pressure from lobbies, oil companies and others?

There is no doubt that the explosion in the price of a barrel of oil has played an important role in the willingness of states to reduce CO2 emissions. A virtuous circle indeed appears: by consuming less, one reduces both the energy bill and the contribution to global warming. This purely physical phenomenon that is actually global warming is presented as a curse punishing men guilty of succumbing to the sirens of energy overconsumption. Ecologists to exploit global warming for their theses on the reduction of economic growth. The increase in the temperature of the globe, however, does not have the same consequences for everyone. This phenomenon does not affect the entire planet in the same way. So we can ask ourselves who benefits from the crime? Are we able, today, to anticipate the consequences of global warming on the different parts of the globe? Melting ice, while it can be dramatic for polar bears, also opens trade routes for some countries ...

And what about the spectacular conversion of François Hollande to the climatic cause. Sincere awareness?

Political maneuver to mend with the ecologists?

The recent news, from Notre-Dame-des-Landes to Sivens via the suspension of the ecotax, is perplexing.

Declarations and initiatives succeed one another: the forthcoming elimination of coal subsidies in aid to developing countries, a promised intervention in Brussels to put an end, in the long term, to European aid for fossil fuels and for an orientation of the plan. Juncker for green growth and the energy transition. Not to mention the famous paragraph on climate obtained by France in the final declaration of the last G20 summit.

Mistrust .