French mathematicians say “The battle against global warming: an absurd, costly and pointless crusade”

The French Société de Calcul Mathématique SA has issued a white paper stating their position on the global warming controversy.  They say:

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. 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. Download 195-page PDF for full report.

Advertisements

4 comments

  1. As a private company, they are allowed to write any report someone pays them to write. Or what they would like to be true which isn’t. No peer review. Online junk.

    1. Jay Alt:

      The only important issue is whether the ‘report’ is right, and It seems you don’t know what peer review is.

      The Société de Calcul Mathématique white paper is correct in every detail.

      There is no empirical evidence for anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming; none, zilch. nada.

      Three decades of research conducted world-wide at a cost of over US$5 billion per year has failed to find any evidence of discernible AGW. In 1996 Ben Santer claimed to have found some such evidence but that was soon shown to be an artifact of Santer selecting data from the middle of a data set (the late John Daly provided this excellent summary of the affair here http://www.john-daly.com/sonde.htm ).

      If you find any evidence of any kind for discernible AGW then please publish it because many (e.g. the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; IPCC) want some such evidence, and your finding would certainly result in you being awarded at least one Nobel Prize.

      Richard

    2. As a private individual I’m allowed to write any report whether I get paid or not. Which part of the statement is false from the societe? I would contend that the fear mongering from CAGW is in error. To be right doesn’t depend on a group that only believes one way. CAGW has excluded anyone who thinks different. Peer reviewed at that point becomes a rubber stamp and is purely junk. CAGW didn’t exclude people by explacation de text, they’ve done it by intimidation, smear, allegations of lying, of being paid off, being sick, stupid, having problems with authority, not a scientist.. not a climate scientist…, not being authorized or peer reviewed. You don’t see a problem with that? You don’t see a problem with asking a question at a climate conference that I get booed and heckled in 2002 because it didn’t fit their mantra? You don’t see a problem with the pamphlet with instructions on leading the non believers of CAGW ?

      The Société only stated the facts and drew an opinion from that which differed from CAGW. How is that junk? Who are you to say that? You have some sort of dispensation from the almighty? The science isn’t settled. There has been no debate. You remember Vietnam? There was no dissenting voices in government, just a bunch of yes men. When dissent becomes treason, it’s a dictatorship. … and besides, CAGW is wrong. I agree with the Societe.

      If you want to win this debate and in your view save the world, prove to me scientifically CAGW is correct. Every prediction by CAGW has failed. That’s hardly science, and shaman and breaking bones to see which way the cracks went would have given better results. Produce some predictions that are based on the science that have happened. Back in 2002 all sorts of terrible things were suppose to have happened by now. None of the widespread disasters have. Extending it out another 100 years actually disproves the math that CAGW is built on.

  2. That goes both ways. The salaries of government “climate scientists” depends on them writing about only what supports government policy. In academia, government grants go only to those who write what the government wants to hear.

Comments are closed.