Fritz Vahrenholt(l'auteur de . Ci- contre, la Reine Elizabeth II remettant . James Lovelock a accord. Voici une traduction de la partie du texte de msnbc qui rapporte les propos de Lovelock (que j'ai engraiss. Par Ian Johnston, msnbc. Avril 2. 01. 2). Lovelock qui a 9. Il avait autrefois donn. En 2. 00. 6, dans un article du journal UK . Nous pensions le savoir, il y a vingt ans. Quand on lui demande s'il . En 2. 00. 7, le Time Magazine avait cit. Lovelock. James Lovelock a 9. Il travaille seul, observe l'. Faut- il attendre d'avoir atteint l'? Nous pensions le savoir, il y a vingt ans. Lovelock. reconna. LA COMMUNICATION pour un d. 1966-1977 : Rue des Pignons : Mimi Jarry; 1978-1979 : Les Contes du Tsar : Kira; 1978-1984 : Terre humaine : Annick Jacquemin; 1979 : Les contes Orientaux : Sao. Terre humaine est un t A ma connaissance et sauf quelques rares exceptions (sur Internet), les m. Voici, parmi beaucoup d'autres, quelques exemples de communiqu. The Telegraph (AU) : . Il nous donne son avis sur l'affaire du CRU, sur les climato- sceptiques, sur la pratique de la science du climat etc.. Tr. Sauf la fin. James Lovelock est mondialement connu pour avoir enfant. Ci- contre la photo de James Lovelock avec, en arri. Titre original de l'indicatif musical : Tender Image (B.Selon James Lovelock, la temp. Vous trouverez le texte original complet de l'interview de Lovelock, ici. En maigre italique, les questions ou commentaires de l'interviewer du Guardian. My second thought was that it was inevitable. Science, not so very long ago, pre- 1. Back when I was young, I didn't want to do anything else other than be a scientist. They're not like that nowadays. They don't give a damn. They go to these massive, mass- produced universities and churn them out. You can get a job for life doing government work. We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 8. Fudging the data in any way whatsoever is quite literally a sin against the holy ghost of science. I'm not religious, but I put it that way because I feel so strongly. It's the one thing you do not ever do. You've got to have standards. You can make mistakes; they're helpful. In the old days, it was perfectly OK to make a mistake and say so. You often learned from it. Nowadays if you're dependent on a grant – and 9. It's an awful moral climate and it was all set up for the best of reasons. I think it was felt there was far too much inequality in science and there was an enormous redress. Looking around the country . Elitism is important in science. La Science, il n'y a pas si longtemps, avant 1. Il n'y en a plus des comme . Ils s'en vont dans ces . Vous pouvez trouver un travail pour la vie en faisant du boulot pour le gouvernement. Je ne suis pas religieux mais je le dis de cette mani. C'est une chose que vous ne devez jamais faire. Vous devez avoir des r. Vous en tiriez souvent un enseignement. De nos jours si vous d. Je pense qu'il avait . Si on regarde tout autour dans le pays . But the damn fool scientists were so mad on the models that they said the satellite must have a fault. We tend to now get carried away by our giant computer models. But they're not complete models. They're based more or less entirely on geophysics. They don't take into account the climate of the oceans to any great extent, or the responses of the living stuff on the planet. So I don't see how they can accurately predict the climate. It's not the computational power that we lack today, but the ability to take what we know and convert it into a form the computers will understand. I think we've got too high an opinion of ourselves. We're not that bright an animal. We stumble along very nicely and it's amazing what we do do sometimes, but we tend to be too hubristic to notice the limitations. If you make a model, after a while you get suckered into it. You begin to forget that it's a model and think of it as the real world. You really start to believe it. Mais ces bougres d'idiots de scientifiques . Mais ce ne sont pas des mod. Ils reposent plus ou moins compl. Ils ne prennent pas en compte le climat des oc. Ainsi, je ne vois pas comment ils peuvent pr. Ce n'est pas la puissance de calcul qui nous manque aujourd'hui mais notre capacit. Je pense que nous avons une trop bonne opinion de nous m. Nous ne sommes pas des animaux si brillants que . Si vous faites un mod. You're either a goodie or a baddie. I've got quite a few friends among the sceptics, as well as among the . I've got more angels as friends than sceptics, I have to say, but there are some sceptics that I fully respect. I find him an interesting sceptic. What I like about sceptics is that in good science you need critics that make you think: . Some of them, of course, are corrupted and employed by oil companies and things like that. Some even work for governments. For example, I wouldn't put it past the Russians to be behind some of the disinformation to help further their energy interests. But you need sceptics especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. I respect their right to be sceptics. Nigel Lawson is an easy person to talk to. He's more like a defence counsel for the sceptics than a right- winger banging the drum. He tries to reason his case. There is one sceptic that everyone should read and that is Garth Paltridge. It is a devastating, critical book. This impresses me a lot. Like me, he's convinced that if you put a trillion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which we will have done in 2. And during those 1,0. What right have the scientists with their models to say that in 2. C? There are plenty of incidences where something turns on the heat, but temperatures actually go down perversely, before eventually going up. A cold winter may mean nothing, as could 1. The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they're scared stiff of the fact that they don't really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven't got the physics worked out yet. One of the chiefs once said to me that he agreed that they should include the biology in their models, but he said they hadn't got the physics right yet and it would be five years before they do. So why on earth are the politicians spending a fortune of our money when we can least afford it on doing things to prevent events 5. The Germans and the Danes are making a fortune out of renewable energy. I'm puzzled why politicians are not a bit more pragmatic about all this. We do need scepticism about the predictions about what will happen to the climate in 5. It's almost naive, scientifically speaking, to think we can give relatively accurate predictions for future climate. There are so many unknowns that it's wrong to do it. Nous sommes tr. J'ai quelques amis parmi les sceptiques, tout comme parmi les . Je dois dire que j'ai plus d'anges comme amis que de sceptiquesmais il y a quelques sceptiques que je respecte tout . Nigel Lawson en fait partie. Je trouve que c'est un sceptique int! Est ce que j'ai fait une erreur, l. Les bons sceptiques ont rendu un grand service, mais certains parmi les fous, je pense qu'il n'ont fait du bien . Certains d'entre eux, bien s. Par exemple, je ne mettrais pas ma main au feu que les Russes ne sont pas derri. Mais vous avez besoin des sceptiques, tout particuli. Nigel Lawson est une personne avec laquelle il est facile de discuter. Il est plus comme un avocat de d. Son livre n'est pas une diatribe ou une pol. Il essaye de raisonner son affaire. Il y a un sceptique que tout le monde devrait lire. C'est Garth Paltridge (NDT : Un climatologue Australien sceptique , cit. C'est un bouquin critique et d. Il m'impressionne beaucoup. Mais ce que nous ne savons pas, c'est dans quelle proportion ils seront n. Si vous regardez dans l'histoire du pass. Et pendant ces mille ann. Quelle est la justification pour que des scientifiques, avec leurs mod? Il y a plein de situations o. Un hiver froid ne signifie rien, tout comme dix hivers froids . If you talk to them privately they're scared stiff of the fact that they don't really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven't got the physics worked out yet. One of the chiefs once said to me that he agreed that they should include the biology in their models, but he said they hadn't got the physics right yet and it would be five years before they do. So why on earth are the politicians spending a fortune of our money when we can least afford it on doing things to prevent events 5. The Germans and the Danes are making a fortune out of renewable energy. I'm puzzled why politicians are not a bit more pragmatic about all this. We do need scepticism about the predictions about what will happen to the climate in 5. It's almost naive, scientifically speaking, to think we can give relatively accurate predictions for future climate. There are so many unknowns that it's wrong to do it. Si vous leur parlez en priv. Nous n'avons pas encore compris cette physique. Un de leurs chefs m'a dit un jour qu'il . Alors pourquoi, bon sang, les politiciens sont- ils en train de d? Les Allemands et les Danois sont en train de se faire une fortune avec les . Il y a tant d'inconnues qu'il est absurde de le faire. Aussi bien sur la fragilit. La fin de l'interview portait sur les solutions . We've become a sort of cheeky, egalitarian world where everyone can have their say. It's all very well, but there are certain circumstances – a war is a typical example – where you can't do that. You've got to have a few people with authority who you trust who are running it. And they should be very accountable too, of course. But it can't happen in a modern democracy. This is one of the problems. What's the alternative to democracy? But even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while. Nous sommes devenus une sorte de monde . Il vous faut quelques personnes qui ont l'autorit. Et ils devraient aussi, bien s.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
January 2017
Categories |