French Scientist Turned Politician Attacked Over Climate Skepticism

[SUBMAN1]

I wonder what the climate whacks are going to think about this one? This guy knows about climate, being a scientists who's main profession studies it, and he pretty much thinks they are all whacks! And he is right!

http://www.dailytech.com/French+Scie...ticle15296.htm

-S

...but he has taken up a new controversy -- becoming a vocal critic of the theory of global warming. And as a prominent geophysicist, Mr. Allègre has more than a leg to stand on, something that makes his opponents quite disconcerted and eager to condemn him....

...Now Mr. Allègre has broken his silence, commenting, "I've nothing to say. I'm in my lab writing a scientific article. We are not in the Soviet Union; we can contest a scientific thesis."...

[Frame57]

There is hope for the French....

[TDK1044]

He must not have got the memmo. There's a lot of money to be made perpetuating the myth of Global warming.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by TDK1044

He must not have got the memmo. There's a lot of money to be made perpetuating the myth of Global warming.

I have heard this a lot, but I'm not sure who stands to make a lot of money.

If I wanted to make serious money I would perpetuate a myth about how
consuming vast amount of resources helps everyone and the world in the
hope that overall consumption would go up as a result. On the face of it, the
creating a global warming myth would seam to do the reverse. Am I missing
something?

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Letum

I have heard this a lot, but I'm not sure who stands to make a lot of money.

If I wanted to make serious money I would perpetuate a myth about how
consuming vast amount of resources helps everyone and the world in the
hope that overall consumption would go up as a result. On the face of it, the
creating a global warming myth would seam to do the reverse. Am I missing
something?

The problem is that most of the world's mainstream resources are already owned, and/or markets already saturated. As such, Global Warming and this "Go Green" movement have allowed entreprenuers to create entirely new lines of products that would not normally viable due to their higher costs.

Just think about it: would anyone really purchase a glass cleaner that is equally effective but costs 30% more, just because? Add that it's "green" to the label, and you got a product.

I have some strange views on the matter, actually. I do believe global warming is overhyped (anyone here who was alive in the 70s probably remembers the danger of global cooling). I also believe that "climate change" isn't understood enough to be predicted (remember how the world was going to be innundated with hurricanes a couple years back, only to see one of the lowest seasons on record?).

However, I have been in many cities around the world with real pollution problems. Smog is real, and it can be dangerous. I'm sure man is affecting the environment in some way, and I have no problem with cleaning our act up.

What I do have a problem with, though, is doing it so heavily on the taxpayer dole. Kyoto was a rip off that hasn't done jack, and yet the world as usual wanted us to foot the majority of the bill.

We have to strike a balance between environmental alarmism and respecting the demands of our culture. Besides, we can go green all we want - our population is exploding leaving us essentially on a treadmill which is gaining speed.

[UglyMowgli]

Mr Allegre is a geochimist he knew nothing about climate , two years ago during a meeting of the French Acamedy of Science he was confronted to the tops of frecnh climatologist and meteorologist and he was so ridiculous in his theory at a point the meeting notes were never published (as usual there is a publication of all speech and discussion a week after the meeting).

The chief of the french CNRS (national research institute) also make a note for all reseracher not to make any comment on subject they have idea about.

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Aramike

this "Go Green" movement have allowed entreprenuers to create entirely new lines of products that would not normally viable due to their higher costs.

This my friends is right on the money. I work in this industry and see it every day.

I feel sorry for any scientist whom may have a dissenting opinion agains the 'global warming' concensus. They will be dismissed and impuned regardless of their qualifications.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Letum

I have heard this a lot, but I'm not sure who stands to make a lot of money.

People who depend on government grants. Nobody is going to give a research grant to a scientist who says everything is fine, nothing new or troubling here. Nobody is going to start the International Satus Quo Agency, either.
Like it or not, even state budgets are a form of market. Aramike is correct. Where the demand has been satisfied, people seek to create new demand, and the government is a bountiful cornucopia of supply. It is populated primarily by arrogant idiots who have a credit card in someone else's name with no spending limit. Is it any wonder why private interests of all kinds, even scientists, take advantage of it so regularly?

The media also profits from this, and all kinds of other doomsday scenarios. They want to get advertisers, which means broadcasting things people will watch. Nobody is going to watch a report on how everything is fine. It's nice, but it isn't news. Journalists also have a bad habit of believing scientists without checking up on them. That's no fault of their own. Most of them wouldn't be willing or able to understand and interpret experimental data properly, anyway. That's why they are jounalism majors and not climatology majors, if they majored in anything at all.

If I wanted to make serious money I would perpetuate a myth about how
consuming vast amount of resources helps everyone and the world in the
hope that overall consumption would go up as a result. On the face of it, the creating a global warming myth would seem to do the reverse. Am I missing
something?

Yes. Creating a myth that consuming vast amounts of resources would do anything won't fly in the free market. It would be impossible to convince me that I should buy even a single plank of rainforest lumber from you, or anyone, let alone vast amounts of it. The reason is because I value my money more than your lumber, and with good reason. I don't need lumber, and most arboreal rainforest growth makes for terrible lumber, anyway.

But a government might buy it, just like the Brazillian government did for a time. The premise of the legislation was to aid poor farmers and simultaneously get something productive out of their cultivation of the rainforest. Naturally, this only led to a destructive increase in cultivation, because an artificial supply was introduced, increasing demand. After the Brazillian government ended up with umpteen-million tons of worthless lumber(that nobody wanted), they repealed the legislation, and ended up with a vastly increased number of even poorer farmers (rainforest soil is very poor, so the agricultural products it produces tend to be substandard, and no one wants to buy them) who then resorted to the slash and burn methods they used earlier.

Or we could look at the U.S. aluminum industry, which does great business because it convinced Congress that aluminum was a vital defense need. Congress heavily subsidized it, and now we have relatively affordable aluminum cans for soda, because all that aluminum production had to be used somewhere. Of course, if the state hadn't gotten involved, no one would buy an aluminum can full of soda because it would cost like $3.00. And then all the precious resources wouldn't have been wasted, because nobody would be extracting them.
Even better, we had an entire generation of armored fighting vehicles that suffered from severe(and lethal) spalling problems because of an attempt to use aluminum armor.


On the other hand, when the free market consumes resources, it does productive things with them. It has to, or the pertinent industry is out-competed and ceases to function. Private industry is solely responsible for the modern computer, which saves untold amounts of paper annually, and uses only a small amount of power. It also created cellular telephone networks, which save vast amounts of copper and rubber. It created the agricultural revolution, and gave us efficient, clean means of generating power, like nuclear energy. And when that wasn't efficient enough, it made it even more efficient.
And it also generates wealth. The wealthiest nations in the world (in terms of GDP per capita and PPP per capita) that don't have vast amounts of oil are all ranked high on the economic freedom index. Wealth begets better education and lower birth rates, which means fewer resources consumed.

If you want to look at what the state-sponsored green revolution has given us, go right ahead. We have ethanol fuels, which are a tremendous waste of land and energy. We have wind power, which is probably the most inefficient means of generating power known to modern society besides biofuel. We have hybrid cars, which just plain suck, and the evidence is in the fact that more people prefer to buy small, cheap, gas-powered conventional vehicles. We have organic food(again), which takes vast amounts of land and feeds fewer people. And we have untold billions wasted on other things that have yet to bear fruit.
Even worse, private industry is responding to this imaginary demand for green products and trying to take advantage of it, resulting in more expensive products(that use more resources, human and natural), which means fewer products sold, which means less money, which means lower wages, less demand for labor, and everyone having a lower standard of living.
Poor countries and people can't afford to care about the environment, and they don't.
Do I even need to name examples? The Green revolution is fine as long as it comes when the market says it should, which is when prices for materials get higher on their own. Until then, there is no point in it. It is just inefficient.

Global Warming, specifically is one of the greatest frauds ever peddled to a mass consciousness. Perhaps the globe is warming, but that is more due to natural changes we cannot stop than due to human activity. Even more naive and vain is the belief that we can somehow change it. This planet spent the vast majority of its' history being warmer than it is now, and some time being much colder. We are not going to change that, no matter what we do. We just have to adapt, and if there is one thing the free market does well, and the state does very, very, poorly, it is adapt.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by TDK1044

He must not have got the memmo. There's a lot of money to be made perpetuating the myth of Global warming.

Al Gore got the memo in triplicate!

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Al Gore got the memo in triplicate!

He should have he more or less authored it.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

I wonder what the climate whacks are going to think about this one?

The same thing as always. People who are convinced of something will condemn anyone who disagrees without thinking twice.

But...

This guy knows about climate, being a scientists who's main profession studies it, and he pretty much thinks they are all whacks!

Where does he say that specifically. He disagrees, yes. And he questions whether man is mainly responsible. And I agree, the evidence is certainly questionable. But I don't see him calling anyone anything, except mistaken.

And he is right!

And you know this for a fact? How?

[Letum]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

People who depend on government grants. Nobody is going to give a research grant [...]

[...] if there is one thing the free market does well, and the state does very, very, poorly, it is adapt.

That certainly seams to make sense.
I'm still obliged to disagree with it, only because in my ignorance of
meteorology I must take the most widely held view amongst those who know
better than I do. That is, of course, my own problem and certainly not a
counter argument.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

The same thing as always. People who are convinced of something will condemn anyone who disagrees without thinking twice.

But...

Where does he say that specifically. He disagrees, yes. And he questions whether man is mainly responsible. And I agree, the evidence is certainly questionable. But I don't see him calling anyone anything, except mistaken.


And you know this for a fact? How?

Obviously you haven't been reading my posts in the last year or two.

Anyway, I am flattered however that you seem to only post rebuttals to my posts over anything else on this board!

I have more to post on this subject today, but I must make another thread since its pretty much a new subject. Waiting for your rebuttal there.

BTW - don't beat around the bush this time. I get bored hanging out in a thread waiting for you to post more opinion instead of fact.

-S

[Frame57]

True about the grant thing...But i feel it is more socio/economic and political than anything. People always want a "Cause" to endorse and support. This global warming horse**** provides that. A cute ploy for future political gain and public manipulation.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Obviously you haven't been reading my posts in the last year or two.

Anyway, I am flattered however that you seem to only post rebuttals to my posts over anything else on this board!

I have more to post on this subject today, but I must make another thread since its pretty much a new subject. Waiting for your rebuttal there.

BTW - don't beat around the bush this time. I get bored hanging out in a thread waiting for you to post more opinion instead of fact.

-S

Interesting. As I've said before I jump on your posts because in the main I agree with you, but you make our side look bad when you throw innuendo around and call it fact. For instance, you said this man called anyone who disagreed a "whack". He didn't say that, so you are specifically wrong, and adding commentary to his statement. That makes you the one who is posting opinion and calling it fact.

The actual evidence on Global Warming is the subject of much debate, as is the evidence on Greenhouse Gasses and the so-called hole in the Ozone Layer. In each case there is some evidence that man may, and I do mean may, be a part of the problem. I think there is enough cause for concern that the scientists involved should keep up the research. I also think that on the one hand we have alarmists who scream that we need to do something yesterday or we are all doomed, and on the other are the people who shout that there is no problem at all. Both sides call each other an idiot if you don't believe them, and most of the name-calling isn't being done by the experts themselves. They just do research and post their findings.

When I asked how you knew what you knew for a fact, I wasn't referring to Global Warming itself, but to the 'fact' that people on the other side are whacks. That is indeed your opinion, but you keep posting it as fact.

I was going to make the same accusations against Tribesman in the Sotomayer thread, but he and Aramike were having so much fun throwing mud at each other I just stayed away.

You are waiting for me to post more opinion and call it fact? I find it interesting that you level the same accusation against me that everyone on these boards throws at you. And yet you never answer them. I'm still waiting for you to make a real reasoned argument on any subject you've brought up. You have never done it yet. All you ever do is call people names and challenge them to prove you wrong, and yet you never show any real evidence to support any argument you've ever made. Please begin sometime soon. Everyone is waiting.