Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

True or false? Exposing the falsehoods of climate change sceptics
France24 ^ | November 1, 2021

Posted on 11/01/2021 6:56:42 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer

As the COP26 climate summit gets under way in the Scottish city of Glasgow amid projections of an apocalyptic future if drastic changes are not made, climate change sceptics still make statements like “global warming is caused by the sun" and “there is no scientific consensus”. FRANCE 24 spoke to climatologist Hervé Le Treut, who deconstructed these falsehoods.

True or false? “The climate has changed before so it’s not a big deal”

We’ve had a stable climate for 10,000 years. So we’re specifically trying to protect the climatic conditions that have allowed humanity to develop during this period. The question is whether or not we want to continue with the climate that has allowed human civilisation to emerge.

True or false? “The sun causes global warming”

This idea has been repeatedly shown to be untrue. The sun’s radiation does indeed fluctuate, with sunspots varying in their levels of activity. But these changes in the sun’s radiation can’t account for the increase in temperatures we’ve seen over the past decades. The notion is impossible to defend scientifically.

True or false? “The situation isn’t all that serious; the IPCC is far too alarmist”

The IPCC report was produced by the unanimous agreement of every country signed up to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. That’s a lot of countries [197, to be precise].

So there’s very strong unanimity, which makes it difficult to accuse the IPCC of saying anything incorrect.

True or false? “People, animals and plants will be able to just adapt’

There’s a lot of documentation pointing to how so much biodiversity is disappearing – often related to environmentally unfriendly forms of agriculture in addition to greenhouse gas emissions.

So it’s quite clear from the evidence we’re seeing today that the adaptation of species is not happening.

(Excerpt) Read more at france24.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: chat; chatforum; climatechange; climatechangefraud; climatechangehoax; g20; glasgow; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax; greennewdeal; hoax; letreut; panicporn; princecharles; propaganda; scotland; scotlandyet; socialism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 last
To: BuchananBrigadeTrumpFan

First it was THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT in which the sun rays changed their wavelength when it pass ed through the atmosphere. With a different wavelength the heat could not escape at night. The blame was on POLLUTION!

Then in the 1970s it was THE COMING ICE AGE caused by a loss of sunlight coming in due to POLLUTION!

In the 1990s it was GLOBAL WARMING caused by CO2 POLLUTION

Both Obama and Biden have beach houses that sit 3 feet above sea level at high tide. If they are not worried, why should we be worried.

From POPULAR SCIENCE, Feb 1980..
PS/What’s News ....
page 73
Changing the weather intentionally or otherwise weather modification..(Earth cooling vs Greenhouse effect)

“Do you suppose we can learn enough, soon enough, to pull off a balancing act with the CO2 blanket saving us from another ice age?”


41 posted on 11/01/2021 8:26:11 AM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (4th time in FB prison this year. Reason? I wrote a quick synopsis of why I was in the last 3 times.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
True or False - Didn't climate hysterics predict in 1970's that there would be a ice age by 2000? (HINT -research Kenneth Watt)

Celebrate Every Failed Alarmist Eco-Prediction: 18 Spectacularly Wrong Earth Day Predictions
42 posted on 11/01/2021 8:28:31 AM PDT by Kid Shelleen (Beat your plowshares into swords. Let the weak say I am strong)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kid Shelleen

We’re already in a ice age or glaciation period, its called the Quaternary. The Quaternary is defined as a period of cyclic continental glaiciations. What you have enjoyd for say the last 10,000-20,000 years or so is a warming lull. Civilization happened Yay !! Someeday (maybe soon !) the lull will end and the ice sheets will advance again. It’s just a matter of when. Humans didn’t cause it. Humans can’t stop it. It is coming !


43 posted on 11/01/2021 8:37:33 AM PDT by Reily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: fuzzylogic

Excellent fuzzylogic. Your logic is not at all “fuzzy”.


44 posted on 11/01/2021 8:38:40 AM PDT by mc5cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
We’ve had a stable climate for 10,000 years. So we’re specifically trying to protect the climatic conditions that have allowed humanity to develop during this period. The question is whether or not we want to continue with the climate that has allowed human civilisation to emerge.

So, what caused the globe to experience climate changes before this stability set in? How unstable was the climate before that stability set in? Were there wild fluctuations in that unstable period before stability was realized? How does the current instability compare to the previous period of instability?

This idea has been repeatedly shown to be untrue. The sun’s radiation does indeed fluctuate, with sunspots varying in their levels of activity. But these changes in the sun’s radiation can’t account for the increase in temperatures we’ve seen over the past decades. The notion is impossible to defend scientifically.

If the sun plays no part in warming, then what caused warming or cooling for the previous unstable climate to realize the 10,000 year stable climate period, and what allowed the stable period climate to remain stable?

45 posted on 11/01/2021 10:16:30 AM PDT by Robert DeLong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mc5cents

Or Rudyard Kipling’s “Gods of the Copybook Headings”.


46 posted on 11/01/2021 10:29:12 AM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ThunderSleeps

Until a scientific discovery is made, the consensus is it doesn’t exist.


As Michael Crichton put it, “Consensus is the business of politics. If it’s consensus, it’s not science. If it’s science, it’s not consensus. The great scientists are great because they broke with consensus”.


47 posted on 11/01/2021 10:33:11 AM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson