240-185
1st March 2010, 03:20 AM
Lately, Mr. Claude Allègre (the French geophysicist) published a book (L'Imposture climatique, Plon Editions)... but it's full of factual errors. Oh, we can't mind of his errors. If only his errors weren't so blatant:
* He defines wrongly the french acronym for IPCC (written "GIEC" in France): instead of "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change", he qualifies it as an "International Groupment for Climate Studies".
* He cherry-picks an article of Science released on March 2007 about the increase of the temperature due to coal combustion bewteen the 70s and 2000.
* He denies the melting of the Antarctic continent. He qualifies it as "not perceptible". He doesn'tg seem to have heard of Isabella Velicogna who showed that between 2006 and 2009, it lost 246 gigatons of ice.
* He didn't read the legends of Erik the Red, where the Vikings discovered the Groenland and provides a wrong explanation about why the Groenland was called "the green land".
* More interesting: he cites non-existant scientists! First, he can't write correctly "Peter Webster" (He writes "Wester"). But what is more hilarious is that he cites the works of a scientist called "Georgia Tech". He hasn't realized that it was in fact the Georgia Institute of Technology, not a person called Georgia Tech! Maybe she's "Virginia Tech"'s sister?
* When he states that "the global climate was 6°C (43°F) hotter 125,000 years ago from nowadays, whereas the CO2 was less abundant", he cites non-existing articles of Science.
* When Mr. Allègre worries about works on clouds not included in IPCC's works, he concludes that it's not "climatically correct", whereas the IPCC states that "the behavior of the clouds is a main source of incertitude on the sensibility of the climate".
* Mr. Allègre deliberately includes graphics that were showed wrong three years ago.
* And last, but not least: he makes an "argumentum ad populum", stating that 50% of the "scientists" don't believe in man-made global warming, 27% "doubt", and 23% believe the IPCC. But these "scientists" are not scientists but... weathers presenters on TV!
Would you still believe a lying scientist who makes such errors? I think not.
(Hmmm, I'm so tired that I can't write English correctly ><)
* He defines wrongly the french acronym for IPCC (written "GIEC" in France): instead of "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change", he qualifies it as an "International Groupment for Climate Studies".
* He cherry-picks an article of Science released on March 2007 about the increase of the temperature due to coal combustion bewteen the 70s and 2000.
* He denies the melting of the Antarctic continent. He qualifies it as "not perceptible". He doesn'tg seem to have heard of Isabella Velicogna who showed that between 2006 and 2009, it lost 246 gigatons of ice.
* He didn't read the legends of Erik the Red, where the Vikings discovered the Groenland and provides a wrong explanation about why the Groenland was called "the green land".
* More interesting: he cites non-existant scientists! First, he can't write correctly "Peter Webster" (He writes "Wester"). But what is more hilarious is that he cites the works of a scientist called "Georgia Tech". He hasn't realized that it was in fact the Georgia Institute of Technology, not a person called Georgia Tech! Maybe she's "Virginia Tech"'s sister?
* When he states that "the global climate was 6°C (43°F) hotter 125,000 years ago from nowadays, whereas the CO2 was less abundant", he cites non-existing articles of Science.
* When Mr. Allègre worries about works on clouds not included in IPCC's works, he concludes that it's not "climatically correct", whereas the IPCC states that "the behavior of the clouds is a main source of incertitude on the sensibility of the climate".
* Mr. Allègre deliberately includes graphics that were showed wrong three years ago.
* And last, but not least: he makes an "argumentum ad populum", stating that 50% of the "scientists" don't believe in man-made global warming, 27% "doubt", and 23% believe the IPCC. But these "scientists" are not scientists but... weathers presenters on TV!
Would you still believe a lying scientist who makes such errors? I think not.
(Hmmm, I'm so tired that I can't write English correctly ><)