French physicist Dr. Serge Galam, director of research at the National Center of Scientific Research (CNRS) and member of a laboratory of Ecole Polytechnique, has published a new paper entitled: ‘Global Warming: the Sacrificial Temptation’
Abstract:
The claimed unanimity of the scientific community about the human culpability for global warming is questioned. Up today there exists no scientific proof of human culpability. It is not the number of authors of a paper, which validates its scientific content. The use of probability to assert the degree of certainty with respect the global warming problem is shown to be misleading. The debate about global warming has taken on emotional tones driven by passion and irrationality while it should be a scientific debate. The degree of hostility used to mull any dissonance voice demonstrates that the current debate has acquired a quasi-religious nature. Scientists are behaving as priests in their will “to save the planet”. We are facing a dangerous social phenomenon, which must be addressed from the social point of view. The current unanimity of citizens, scientists, journalists, intellectuals and politicians is intrinsically worrying. The calls to sacrifice our way of life to calm down the upset nature is an emotional ancestral reminiscence of archaic fears, which should be analyzed as such.
Conclusion:
To sum up above analysis of the social and human aspects of global warming, most caution should be taken to prevent opportunistic politicians, more and more numerous, to subscribe to the proposed temptation of a sacrifice frame in order to reinforce their power by canalizing these archaic fears that are reemerging. Let us keep in mind that in a paroxysm crisis of fear, opinions can be activated very quickly among millions of mobilized citizens, ready to act in the same direction, against the same enemy: it then enough to designate it. Such kind of phenomena should be studied within the new emerging field of sociophysics, in particular the dynamics of minority opinion spreading and the rumor propagation [6, 7, 8].
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Spot on.
Our mate Serge wrote a stinker to Le Monde banging on about commies, nazis, suppression of Einstein’s theories, Galileo, the Inquisition and sacrificing to pagan gods. Wow what a combo!
A new field of “sociophysics” eh ? – sounds like the suspension in a Citroen.
Why should you listen to Serge – he’s on Morano’s list. ROTFL.
The amount of polar ice in the world is now comfortably above its long term average, and the planet is significantly colder than 1 year ago. No warming trend is apparent from the last ten years, and the sun is frighteningly quiet. [no sunspots]. Solar cycle 24 just does not want to start.
There is 4.5 metres of snow in Quebec City.
How many straws are required before someone realises we may be facing a [cooling] climate disaster?
Doug, the ‘global warmniks’ have gone quiet on this one,. Just like the Sun.
But now they’ve changed their tune to “man-made global warming CAUSES climate change. It is a lie so huge, so Orwellian, that they must be hurting themselves patting themselves on the back, and asking “why didn’t we think of this before?”
Don’t tell us we “may” be facing a cooling disaster – well are we or not. No fence sitting – what’s your risk assessment advice to government if you are so concerned – where is the denialists’ cooling report?
Which regions need to take action and what. What will it cost. Can we do anything about it. Is it cost effective to just let it happen. Where’s the report guys?
There isn’t one – all you’re going to get is an unequivocal “may”. Might rain – might not. Might get hit crossing the road – might not.
The Orwellian lie is the pretence that denialists know anything or have anything positive to contribute.
Yes Luke, just like all the ‘coulds’, ‘possibles’ and ‘mays’ from the IPCC.
“The Orwellian lie is the pretence that denialists know anything or have anything positive to contribute.” That’s rich. The only thing climate hysterics have “contributed” is their pseudoscientific propaganda, lying to and frightening children, environmental and economic disasters like ethanol, and generally creating a fraudulent global panic costing billions of dollars. Climate hysterics are in fact the denialists, as they deny science, preferring to cling to their AGW/AGCC Religion. Yeah, that’s positive Luke, keep telling yourself that.
ROTFL – looks like you’re having a religious fit of denialism. Frightening children – hahahahaahaha. I hear that the IPCC were behind 9/11 too.
More than 50% of the denialist material is utter rubbish. See E&E. Which theory are you guys running at the moment – is it cosmic rays, barycentres, sunspots, PDO, iris effect – what’s the latest?
And again you’ve linked the science, the extreme enviro political movements and policy decisions all together. Predictable denialist fogging of issues. Obscurantists !
All I quoted was facts. I have seen reports quoting about 70% correlation of climate with total solar irradiation [ with several years time lag]. Having watched several months of nil or negligeable sunspot activity, and most reports of when solar cycle 24 was due to start rendered invalid, governments should start to worry greatly about food, if nothing else.
One report stated baldly that if the report’s expected cooling [1.5 degrees C] eventuated, Canadian spring wheat production would fall fromm 22 million tons pa to about 10 m tons. This would be echoed elsewhere.
So where’s the tome then Doug – where’s your report? Surely you guys would be warning world governments, not sitting on the fence making maybe/maybe not comments.
Headlines from the World Skeptics Organisation (WSO)
“Global freezing crisis predicted”. “Report tabled in UN”. “IPCC disbanded”
This is the big opportunity for you guys to make your mark and dispense with the whole AGW movement. But you can’t have bets that are half on.
One thing – can we see the cross validation statistic if you had made your forecast anytime for the last 100 years. Let’s see the formal report on the forecast.
Poor Luke. Still believes in hockey sticks. Still believes C02 drives climate, though simple physics say otherwise. Still mindlessly repeats the same, tired, pseudoscientific drivel. If only he had a brain, and could think for himself. Sad. Really sad.
No Bruce – don’t attempt a diversion – put up time from you guys – where’s your report? Let’s see it. Let’s see some denialist creativity (if there is any to be had).
So here we have an ongoing projection from the denialist camp of an imminent global cooling crisis, the group that feigns so much concern for the world’s poor – and all we have is rumour mongering and snippets. Isn’t that piss poor if you’re serious? Or maybe you’re not serious? Which is it.
If you guys were any good you’d be showing leadership and would not be spending time squabbling with us.
And if you want to see the quality the denialist debate check this unbelievably loopy one-sided exchange with Leif Svalgaard. Your boy not ours.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2679#comment-224682
Jeepers, Luke, it’s entertaining to see David Archibald hopping around on a pogo stick. He’s the same Archibald who gave the presentation at the recent conference, isn’t he? Shows the standard of the event.
“where’s your report?” No Luke, where’s yours? You’re the one with the idiotic idea that C02’s greenhouse effect is somehow, magically going to kick into some sort of overdrive any day now. Prove it! Put up, or shut up. And, please try, at least being a little more creative than merely spouting the same, tired climate hysteric drivel.
We’re waitin…
Listen mate – you have ours and you’ve rejected it. Hundreds of pages.
So your turn numb nuts.
You mean to tell me that you guys are predicting a cooling disaster and you are so pathetic and apathetic that you will just sit there and produce nothing. No warnings to government. Nothing to say.
You’re all full of wind and piss.
So no fence sitting now bullshit artists – where’s your policy briefing. Failure to produce one means you haven’t a clue.
If you haven’t a clue don’t go round talking about cooling disasters then.
You have ours – where’s your alternative.
So while we’re examining the “quality” of the denialist argument let’s see have a look at a petulant little try-on by one of your religious devotees. A certain conference goer and author to that prestige journal E&E.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2679#comment-224682
(Starts 714)
Archibald says to Leif Svalgaard in discussion of lack of correlation at certain parts of a time series on solar.
“My recommendation to Dr Svalgaard is, instead of hammering the TSI flat, why don’t you tweak yours so that it agrees with other data sets?”
Clearly aghast, Svalgaard replies “Maybe you would do something like this, not me.
Your comment #717 should be an embarrassment to you.”
Archibald reveals “It is also worth noting that almost all skeptics agree that we have/will get a least a 1 degC of warming from CO2 no matter how much we might wish otherwise.”
They do – what a massive admission? But what’s this very scientific “we might wish otherwise” WTF Religious zeal.
If you read the whole exchange I have never seen a more slimy attempt to bluff a serious scientist into adopting a position. And Svalgaard shows his disdain for unscientific impertinent behaviour.
So your standards dudes !
Luke,
I wonder how much Archibalds presentation was tweaked for the conference?
Well it gets worse – he’s now under attack from friendly fire – comments 720 through 730
Being asked things like:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2679#comment-224682
“The RSS satellite temperature analysis in your presentation has a 0.18 degree per decade warming trend for the globe. Do you consider this to be insignificant?
What criteria did you use to select the 5 rural stations to represent the temperature change for the US?
Why do you believe that swings in the temperature of Central England are evidence that the world undergoes similar swings?
What is the source for the chart labeled “Medieval Warm Period – Little Ice Age”. Further, is it consistent with the chart that immediately follows, “The Holocene Optimum.””
and then further
“0.18 degrees per decade is the rate of warming of the RSS analysis from 1979 to the present. That is independent of what any of us “see”.
You have used 5 temperature stations from the Southeast United States to infer the temperature change of the entire United States.
Local temperatures are more variable than global temperatures.
The graph from the First Assessment Report is Hubert Lamb’s temperature reconstruction of Central England. It was mislabled “global temperature” in the report. It uses growing seasons to infer temperature before thermometers.
You have mislabled the scale. According to Lamb’s graph, the difference between the LIA and MWP in Central England was about 1.3 degrees (based on 50 year averages), not 4 degrees. A 4 degree temperature change is clearly incompatible with the “Holocene Optimum” graph, even given the coarse resolution.”
ROTFL – what a turkey shoot.
Luke, your C02 pseudoscience has failed miserably. The science has moved on. So, why don’t you just stop throwing your pathetic little climate hysteric tantrums and get over it! Oh, and BTW, nice try with the straw men. ROTFLMAO!
Just tell us you support Archibald’s published work Brucey – just say it. I dare you. Surely you do and would like to throw your support in?
Luke, I find your obsession with my work quite flattering. Obviously you fear it. If temperatures keep falling for a few more yearsthen only ones left supporting AGW will be the true believers, and the truly idiotic. Or is that moment with us now?