tisdag 21 september 2010

French Academy of Sciences Debates Climate

Science and Le Monde reports that the French Academy of Sciences finally produced a statement after a full day of debate on climate change Monday that had been shrouded in secrecy:
  • Concernant les gaz à effet de serre, dont le CO2 émis par les activités humaines, s’il existe un consensus sur leur impact direct, le rôle de leurs effets indirects est encore controversé. 
  • (Concerning CO2 emitted by human activity, even if there is a consensus on its direct impact, its indirect effects remain controversial).
In other words, there is no consensus on the role of CO2 for global warming, since only the 
total effect (including direct and indirect effects) is of any interest to science and humanity
(and nobody knows what the direct effect is anyway).

No consensus! NO CONSENSUS! Controversy! CONTROVERSY!

This is to be compared with the upcoming climate seminar organized by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences October 6, where only one side of the controversy is allowed to speak.

Sweden is a society with One King, One Academy and One Truth about the controversial 
role of CO2.  France and the US are not.

3 kommentarer:

  1. Do you translate "s'il existe" as "there exist". Isn't it an abbreviation of "si il existe" which means "if there exist". I agree that it is confusing though. Moreover, there cannot possibly be any consensus about the "direct effect" since virtually nobody knows what the greenhouse hypothesis is supposed to explain.

  2. You are right, and I have corrected.

  3. Wrong!

    In context, "si il existe" means "there is"

    It is a statement of fact. There is no "if", no question about that.

    The Academy states that a consensus exists, but only on the tiny direct effect of CO2.