French Mathematical Society: How Can Rational France Fall for ‘Absurd’ Climate Crusading?
Weeks before the COP21 climate change circus hits Paris — in a cloud of hated carbon emissions — the French Mathematical Society is asking how has a rational country like France succumbed so unquestioningly to climate change crusading?
The society says the answer seems to be because it is “virtuous”, but it goes on immediately to note that mathematicians (alike in many ways to scientists), don’t do crusades, looking rather “at facts, figures, observations and arguments”.
So concerned are these mathematicians about the un-reasoned, un-critical and thus (as they see it) un-French acceptance of what they label “this absurd, costly and pointless crusade” that the society published a 196-page White Paper (download: SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN) in September 2015 seeking to clarify a French scientific approach to the climate change lobby.
According to its website the Societe de Calcul Mathematique SA(or French Mathematical Society) was established in 1987, initially as a non-profit organisation, by university academic Dr. Bernard Beauzamy and has a long list of important scientific achievements under its belt, many of which can be found here.
The society has its headquarters on the fashionable Faubourg Saint Honoré in the heart of Paris not a few hundred metres from the Élysée Palace, seat of French president François Hollande, the host of a gathering which could have a significant impact on his (slim) chances of re-election in 2017.
The introduction to the society’s White Paper is scathing about the cost of COP21 the official designation of the UN-backed Paris inter-governmental conclave that runs from November 30th to December 11th.
The document, entitled ‘The battle against global warming: an absurd, costly and pointless crusade’, states: “All public policies, in France, Europe and throughout the world, find their origin and inspiration in the battle against global warming. The initial credo is simple: temperatures at the surface of the planet have been rising constantly for the past thirty years, and human beings are to blame… (but) there is not a single fact, figure or observation that leads us to conclude that the world’s climate is in any way ‘disturbed’. It is variable, as it has always been, but rather less so now than during certain periods or geological eras.”
The climate sceptic website Watts Up With That, citing their paper takes up their cry: “Modern methods are far from being able to accurately measure the planet‘s global temperature even today, so measurements made 50 or 100 years ago are even less reliable.
“Concentrations of CO2 vary, as they always have done; the figures that are being released are biased and dishonest. Rising sea levels are a normal phenomenon linked to upthrust buoyancy; they are nothing to do with so-called global warming. As for extreme weather events – they are no more frequent now than they have been in the past.”
Watts Up With That continues “Thousands will go to Paris with over half of them Non-Government Organization (NGO) people. They will push an agenda that … is completely unnecessary. It is built on the false science created by the IPCC to support the political objective of Agenda 21. German Physicist and meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Plus explained why too many scientists don’t understand. They never read what the IPCC said. ‘Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data—first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it’.”
“Scientifically it is sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate by turning a CO2 adjustment knob.”
The society’s damning paper continues: “The impact on the entire field of scientific research is particularly clear and especially pernicious. No project can be launched, on any subject whatsoever, unless it makes direct reference to global warming. You want to look at the geology of the Garonne Basin? It is, after all, an entirely normal and socially useful subject in every respect. Well, your research will be funded, approved and published only if it mentions the potential for geological storage of CO2. It is appalling. The crusade has invaded every area of activity and everyone‘s thinking: the battle against CO2 has become a national priority. How have we reached this point, in a country that claims to be rational? At the root lie the declarations made by the IPPC, which have been repeated over the years and taken up by the European Commission and the Member States. France, which likes to see itself as the good boy of Europe‘, adds an extra layer of virtue to every crusade. When others introduce reductions, we will on principle introduce bigger reductions, without ever questioning their appropriateness: a crusade is virtuous by its very nature. And you can never be too virtuous. But mathematicians do not believe in crusades; they look at facts, figures, observations and arguments.”
Here is more from the society’s paper:
“Chapter 1: The crusade is absurd
“… concentrations of CO2 vary, as they always have done; the figures that are being released are biased and dishonest. Rising sea levels are a normal phenomenon linked to upthrust buoyancy; they are nothing to do with so-called global warming. As for extreme weather events – they are no more frequent now than they have been in the past. We ourselves have processed the raw data on hurricanes.
“We are being told that ‘a temperature increase of more than 2°C by comparison with the beginning of the industrial age would have dramatic consequences, and absolutely has to be prevented’. When they hear this, people worry: hasn’t there already been an increase of 1.9°C? Actually, no: the figures for the period 1995-2015 show an upward trend of about 1°C every hundred years! Of course, these figures, which contradict public policies, are never brought to public attention.
“Chapter 2: The crusade is costly
“Direct aid for industries that are completely unviable (such as photovoltaics and wind turbines) but presented as ‘virtuous’ runs into billions of euros, according to recent reports published by the Cour des Comptes (French Audit Office) in 2013. But the highest cost lies in the principle of ‘energy saving’, which is presented as especially virtuous. Since no civilization can develop when it is saving energy, ours has stopped developing: France now has more than three million people unemployed – it is the price we have to pay for our virtue.
“We want to cut our CO2 emissions at any cost: it is a way of displaying our virtue for all to see. To achieve these reductions, we have significantly cut industrial activity and lost jobs. But at least we have achieved our aim of cutting CO2 emissions, haven’t we? The answer is laughable: apparently not. Global emissions of CO2 have continued to rise, including those generated by France in designing and manufacturing its own products, as the Cour des Comptes clearly states. Quite simply, manufacturing that is held to be environmentally damaging has been relocated. So the same products are now being manufactured in countries that are far less respectful of the environment, and we have lost all the associated jobs. As Baudelaire says, ‘Nature’s irony combines with our insanity’.
“Chapter 3: The crusade is pointless
“Human beings cannot, in any event, change the climate. If we in France were to stop all industrial activity (let’s not talk about our intellectual activity, which ceased long ago), if we were to eradicate all trace of animal life, the composition of the atmosphere would not alter in any measurable, perceptible way. To explain this, let us make a comparison with the rotation of the planet: it is slowing down. To address that, we might be tempted to ask the entire population of China to run in an easterly direction. But, no matter how big China and its population are, this would have no measurable impact on the Earth’s rotation. French policy on CO2 emissions is particularly stupid, since we are one of the countries with the cleanest industrial sector. International agreements on the subject began with the Kyoto Protocol, but the number of countries signing up to this agreement and its descendants are becoming fewer and fewer, now representing just 15% of emissions of greenhouse gases.
“This just goes to show the truth of the matter: we are fighting for a cause (reducing CO2 emissions) that serves absolutely no purpose, in which we alone believe, and which we can do nothing about. You would probably have to go quite a long way back in human history to find such a mad obsession…”
The Societe de Calcul Mathematique SA is not the first nor will it be the last rational body to pronounce on the “science” so widely cited by governments, and green activists everywhere to back their claims and demands for climate change policies, and never more so than now in the run-up to COP21 in Paris.
Here to help balance the debate, is a long but informative interview with a Canadian reporter and blogger who exposes the bogus nature of claims made by the lead generator of the carbon emissions lobby, the IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This as she notes, is a UN organisation to which nation states rather than climate scientists belong:
Published on YouTube Jul 8, 2015: The inner workings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is exposed and laid bare by Donna Laframboise, a Canadian investigative reporter who writes the No consensus blog.
Some random quotes from her responses in the video: “One third of the references in the IPCC 2007 climate change report were not peer reviewed yet its chairman announced over and over again that they were… The UN is a political body, governments selected the scientists who made contributions leaving room for political influence… many of the lead writers of the chapters in the report were undergraduates with no record of published scientific papers, others were activists from interested parties such as the World Wildlife Fund … I don’t think politics and science mix very well. The real reason the IPCC exists is that the UN decided in 1992 that human-generated CO2 was a climate problem effectively placing politics before the science … the scientists were never in charge….”
The interviewer Topher Field sums up the outcome of the video conversation at 43.30 minutes.
Topher Field is an Australian activist and short film maker. He started making political films five years ago because of a severe drought and water shortage and has since branched out into areas such as freedom of speech, the growth of government, taxation, regulation and personal liberty
Donna Laframboise is an investigative journalist based in Port Dover, Canada. She is the author of two books about the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Described by Germany’s Der Spiegel as the IPCC’s “sharpest critic”, Donna has testified about the IPCC before a committee of the British House of Commons, and addressed audiences in Berlin, Brisbane, Calgary, Edinburgh, Erice (Sicily), London, Mannheim, Melbourne, Munich, Oslo, Perth, Sydney, Toronto, and Warsaw. Donna is a former columnist, editorial board member, and feature writer for Canada’s National Post newspaper.
The video was filmed in September 2013 as part of a 50-to-1-project funded by the Lord Monckton Foundation.
The Lord Monckton Foundation “Our Charter … is founded on the basis, that in this day and age, each of Education, History, Logic, Science and rational thought is critical for the survival of our civilisation. The Lord Monckton Foundation stands as the wall of the West, the redoubt of reason, the sentinel of science, the fortress of freedom, and the defender of democracy”.
Meanwhile Pew Research has just released this map showing the results of its research into climate scepticism around the world:
It says: “…there are significant regional differences on the perception of the problems posed by global warming. And Americans and Chinese, whose economies are responsible for the greatest annual CO2 emissions, are among the least concerned…”
Story: Ken Pottinger