Rarely has a debate as concerned about public opinion and the media as that rages today about climate change and the possible responsibility of humanity to it.
Climate scientists themselves are divided into two warring factions. The majority of them seem to fall into the camp “official” one who supports a view that can be summarized in four points:
– The temperature of the earth is increasing and will continue to do so dangerously
– Human activities and particularly emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the major cause of the phenomenon
– We must act to control and reduce these
– There are ways to get there and need to implement urgently to “save the planet.”
But other climatologists, who are increasingly vocal, challenging the very foundations of that reasoning. They argue that climate variations have always existed, and there is no evidence that human activities, including CO2 emissions, have a significant influence on its evolution and the average global temperature.
When oneself is not a climatologist – and there are very few in the world – is it possible to get an opinion? Faced with the difficulty of the subject and scope of the controversy, the temptation is to respond negatively to this question. This article will try to show that it is not, and that a rational approach that could be described as an engineer, that is to say from the facts, can lead a number of conclusions questionable and difficult to throw new light on this complex subject.
Rather than enter the debate between them climatologists about climate change and the potential for humanity to it, the reasoning suggested taking the problem upside down and share a simple question “What is our flexibility with regard to CO2 emissions? Y do we something?
Stefan Rahmstorf became Pope in Germany in the fight against global warming.
We are ordinary citizens who want nothing so much as to accelerate the transition of technologies using more fossil fuels.We drive cars need less fuel. We try to get an objective situation of climate and contribute to behavior change in energy.
But we are media specialists, scientists, media, intellectuals, and we have a memory. And this is not the first time we are living the hysteria of the late world. Example: the death of forests. “No serious scientist” could not deny that in the 1980s the forest was dying on a large scale. Today we know that it was a mirage fueled by a pressure group eager Grant, playing irrational fears related to the romantic approach to nature What the Germans.
With his rhetoric ideologized fault-penance-atonement, the “climate catastrophe” is becoming a secular religion putting everything in the same bag – including the fundamental issues of democracy, poverty and development in the world.Privileged areas of the globe are reappearing censorship and intellectual shortcuts that we have seen in debates about the atom, peace or the environment.
What concerns us is the certainty with which the world proclaimed as absolute scientific discourses that are also political.Karl Popper described the function of scientific work: “All theories are hypotheses, all can be disassembled. The game of science has basically no end. He who decides one day that scientific principles do not have to be checked further, but should be regarded as finally verified, the game comes out “ On behalf of the emergency, the inevitability of a distant end of the world inexorable, we can take hostages unconditionally souls, men, political strategies, economic investments.