The time has come to declare my incompetence in the area of climate, or rather my extreme naivety in the face of the big luminaries of science who deal with it.

Until now, I’ve only seen them as bloated, people who exaggerate their importance by exaggerating their words, whether it’s by estimating that the climate is hypersensitive to greenhouse gases (the models are overheating) or by simulating crazy scenarios (projected emissions that go far beyond the productive capacity of fossil fuels) in order to maximize the fear that should prevail and to motivate an emergency mobilization that should save the climate or save us from the climate, I’ve never really understood this.

Nevertheless, I took them for rather competent bloats, at least as far as the scientific and technical aspects of the matter were concerned. Well, I have to disillusion myself: either they are competent and lie systematically and in an organised gang, or they are truly imbeciles.

Yesterday, Judith Curry posted a captivating blog post about the plausibility of the scenarios used to calculate the probable evolution of the climate during this century.

This would be nothing else than a bit more of banter between soldiers from the same company if she didn’t point out that the scenarios used by the climate community only incorporate projections of human activity (scenario of emissions of CO₂ and other gases) and don’t take into account that natural factors will also change. I didn’t know that, so I granted credit to climatologists for the wisdom to take this into account with all the contingencies that it might entail. Nay, variations in solar irradiation, volcanic eruptions and decadal variations in the oceans are not subject to any scenario. It is like testing an aircraft model without side winds, a legitimate omission when you don’t know how to do it but dishonest if you claim the results as valid for all cases.

As these factors are currently aligned towards cooling, their impact must be assessed. Without going into the intricacies of these calculations, here is a summary of the results (Table 6 of the article) for three scenarios concerning all factors:

Scénario :	Warmest	Moderate	Coldest
Emissions	+0.70	+0.52	+0.35
Volcanoes	0	-0.11	-.30
Solar irradiation	0	-.0.10	-0.25
Oceans	0	-0.20	-0.30
Net change	+0.70	+0.11	-.50

Table: Expected temperature change between 2020 and 2050, in °C, according to three scenarios taking into account all disturbance factors, both human and natural.

It is therefore quite possible that it might not be as hot in 2050 as it is today.

Of course, one will retort that, not knowing how the sun, volcanoes or oceans will evolve, it is legitimate not to assume anything about them – business as usual would mean no business. To which I will re-retort that this unpredictability also applies to human activities. Scenarios for human greenhouse gas emissions are and always are the subject of arcane discussions and difficult to read publications. But as far as nature is concerned, and as climate change is not expected to depend on it – the UN definition only considers human action – its role remains irrelevant and therefore concealed. Or else this role does not play in the sense of the official narrative, all the more reason to conceal it.

These considerations will of course be considered diabolical by the climate community, especially since Judith Curry is seen by it as a modern witch.

The advocates of decarbonation will be the least receptive, as such a result would tend to demobilize people in the face of a peril that is no longer so urgent or important. Let no one misunderstand me: one day the World will have to wean itself off fossil fuels. However, this can and must be done according to criteria other than panic and knee-jerk decisions. Also, fundamental questions remain about the sensitivity of the climate to CO₂, or about the socio-economic impacts of climate change. The field of uncertainty is widening, requiring all this to be studied more soberly, taking the time it takes and abandoning anthropogenic a priori.

Any honest person will react by asking serious questions; and dishonest climate scientists will have to learn to answer them without omissions. It is necessary to put an immediate end to the clamour of urgency and to stop the pharaonic expenses engaged in actions that will remain futile. The resources thus freed – people, materials, energy, finance – can be put to much better use.

Merci de compartir cet article