- 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.
Inlägg
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.
SvaraRaderaYou are right, and I have corrected.
SvaraRaderaWrong!
SvaraRaderaIn 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.