Scientist reverses position on Global Warming

Jun 27, 2005
19,216
1
61
Link
And he's a socialist to boot. (So no right wing whacko comments please) And he's not sponsored by Exxon or some other evil corporation. He's just a guy who can see that the science doesn't work when you try to blame the actions of man for what is being observed in our climate.

Allegre's second thoughts
The Deniers -- The National Post's series on scientists who buck the conventional wisdom on climate science
LAWRENCE SOLOMON, Financial Post
Published: Friday, March 02, 2007

Claude Allegre, one of France's leading socialists and among her most celebrated scientists, was among the first to sound the alarm about the dangers of global warming.

"By burning fossil fuels, man increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which, for example, has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century," Dr. Allegre, a renowned geochemist, wrote 20 years ago in Cles pour la geologie.." Fifteen years ago, Dr. Allegre was among the 1500 prominent scientists who signed "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity," a highly publicized letter stressing that global warming's "potential risks are very great" and demanding a new caring ethic that recognizes the globe's fragility in order to stave off "spirals of environmental decline, poverty, and unrest, leading to social, economic and environmental collapse."

In the 1980s and early 1990s, when concern about global warming was in its infancy, little was known about the mechanics of how it could occur, or the consequences that could befall us. Since then, governments throughout the western world and bodies such as the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have commissioned billions of dollars worth of research by thousands of scientists. With a wealth of data now in, Dr. Allegre has recanted his views. To his surprise, the many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming. Meanwhile, increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena. Dr. Allegre now sees global warming as over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank.

His break with what he now sees as environmental cant on climate change came in September, in an article entitled "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" in l' Express, the French weekly. His article cited evidence that Antarctica is gaining ice and that Kilimanjaro's retreating snow caps, among other global-warming concerns, come from natural causes. "The cause of this climate change is unknown," he states matter of factly. There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the "science is settled."

Dr. Allegre's skepticism is noteworthy in several respects. For one, he is an exalted member of France's political establishment, a friend of former Socialist president Lionel Jospin, and, from 1997 to 2000, his minister of education, research and technology, charged with improving the quality of government research through closer co-operation with France's educational institutions. For another, Dr. Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution. His break with scientific dogma over global warming came at a personal cost: Colleagues in both the governmental and environmental spheres were aghast that he could publicly question the science behind climate change.

But Dr. Allegre had allegiances to more than his socialist and environmental colleagues. He is, above all, a scientist of the first order, the architect of isotope geodynamics, which showed that the atmosphere was primarily formed early in the history of the Earth, and the geochemical modeller of the early solar system. Because of his path-breaking cosmochemical research, NASA asked Dr. Allegre to participate in the Apollo lunar program, where he helped determine the age of the Moon. Matching his scientific accomplishments in the cosmos are his accomplishments at home: Dr. Allegre is perhaps best known for his research on the structural and geochemical evolution of the Earth's crust and the creation of its mountains, explaining both the title of his article in l' Express and his revulsion at the nihilistic nature of the climate research debate.


Calling the arguments of those who see catastrophe in climate change "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers," Dr. Allegre especially despairs at "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters." The world would be better off, Dr. Allegre believes, if these "denouncers" became less political and more practical, by proposing practical solutions to head off the dangers they see, such as developing technologies to sequester C02. His dream, he says, is to see "ecology become the engine of economic development and not an artificial obstacle that creates fear."

Lawrence Solomon@nextcity.com

- - -

- Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute and Consumer Policy Institute, divisions of Energy Probe Research Foundation.

CV OF A DENIER:

Claude Allegre received a Ph D in physics in 1962 from the University of Paris. He became the director of the geochemistry and cosmochemistry program at the French National Scientific Research Centre in 1967 and in 1971, he was appointed director of the University of Paris's Department of Earth Sciences. In 1976, he became director of the Paris Institut de Physique du Globe. He is an author of more than 100 scientific articles, many of them seminal studies on the evolution of the Earth using isotopic evidence, and 11 books. He is a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the French Academy of Science.

Is it me or is this becoming a trend? There have been a lot of stories like this recently. Maybe we're coming around to a more rational view on the issue? Recognizing the problems and inaccuracies with the science and the models that have been created with it thus far is the first step.

Science before politics.

 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
I think the biggest trend I noted among these well educated and highly acclaimed scientists who go against the norm is the constant reaction and personal loss they experience at the hands of the science community and political leadership. Now is the time to quash all dissenting view so we can get on with our reconciliation and recieve our punishment.

 

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
Originally posted by: Genx87
I think the biggest trend I noted among these well educated and highly acclaimed scientists who go against the norm is the constant reaction and personal loss they experience at the hands of the science community and political leadership. Now is the time to quash all dissenting view so we can get on with our reconciliation and recieve our punishment.

you mean like this?
http://newsbusters.org/node/10665
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Why is it we can have an ice age and the earth then warmed up all on its own without any help from man? How did that happen without pollution?
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,112
1,585
126
I do think it's funny that the conservatives that agree with him would also be the ones most likely to disagree with him on other cases on the basis that he's French.

And whether or not you agree that global warming is man-made, why is it even an argument? Because quite frankly it seems to me that pollution is a bad thing that we should make all efforts to reduce even if it doesn't actually add to global warming. Why do so many people argue against taking measures to curb global warming? Even if those measures won't stop global warming, they'll lessen pollution overall, so what's the issue? Do we like being stupid that much in this nation?
 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Is it me or is this becoming a trend? There have been a lot of stories like this recently.

It's pretty obvious, he lost his exclusive funding.

You bring up an interesting point. Many of these scientists aren't even looking at other alternatives, they have getting funded by groups that basically pay them to draw the conclusions they want them to draw. I'm not saying global warming ISN'T caused by humans, but I personally think many of the scientists are pushed into drawing that conclusion without first examining other possibilities.
 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Originally posted by: thraashman
I do think it's funny that the conservatives that agree with him would also be the ones most likely to disagree with him on other cases on the basis that he's French.

And whether or not you agree that global warming is man-made, why is it even an argument? Because quite frankly it seems to me that pollution is a bad thing that we should make all efforts to reduce even if it doesn't actually add to global warming. Why do so many people argue against taking measures to curb global warming? Even if those measures won't stop global warming, they'll lessen pollution overall, so what's the issue? Do we like being stupid that much in this nation?

Co2 isn't really pollution in the sense that it's dirty or anything.
 

sierrita

Senior member
Mar 24, 2002
929
0
0
Originally posted by: piasabird
Why is it we can have an ice age and the earth then warmed up all on its own without any help from man? How did that happen without pollution?

"Goliath...does Gawd love me?"
 

NeoV

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
9,504
2
81
Certainly there are cycles in the Earth's weather patterns - cycles we really don't understand or have any accurate record of.

That said, with the rise of modern man, and the crap we are putting in the air - I don't get how people can say that this new variable, which hasn't existed before in the Earth's history, is not having any effect.

I have yet to understand why the right is anti-global warming either - is it to defend Bush's stance on things like the Kyoto treaty, or some of the ignorant, blatant misinformation campaigns they have used? What gives here?

 

crimson117

Platinum Member
Aug 25, 2001
2,094
0
76
Originally posted by: thraashman
And whether or not you agree that global warming is man-made, why is it even an argument? Because quite frankly it seems to me that pollution is a bad thing that we should make all efforts to reduce even if it doesn't actually add to global warming. Why do so many people argue against taking measures to curb global warming? Even if those measures won't stop global warming, they'll lessen pollution overall, so what's the issue? Do we like being stupid that much in this nation?

Pollution is definitely a problem. It dirties the air we breathe (inner city kids get bad asthma), dirties our water (you can't swim/fish in the hudson river). So those are two good reasons to stop polluting.

It's not right to scare people with Global Warming threats in order to achieve the secondary effect of solving water and air pollution problems.

I mean, that'd be like scaring people with threats of terrorism in order to achieve the secondary effect of taking over Iraq :p
 

blackllotus

Golden Member
May 30, 2005
1,875
0
0
Originally posted by: NeoV
Certainly there are cycles in the Earth's weather patterns - cycles we really don't understand or have any accurate record of.

We may not understand the cycles, but we definately have a [partial] record of them. Link
 

foghorn67

Lifer
Jan 3, 2006
11,883
63
91
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: thraashman
I do think it's funny that the conservatives that agree with him would also be the ones most likely to disagree with him on other cases on the basis that he's French.

And whether or not you agree that global warming is man-made, why is it even an argument? Because quite frankly it seems to me that pollution is a bad thing that we should make all efforts to reduce even if it doesn't actually add to global warming. Why do so many people argue against taking measures to curb global warming? Even if those measures won't stop global warming, they'll lessen pollution overall, so what's the issue? Do we like being stupid that much in this nation?

Co2 isn't really pollution in the sense that it's dirty or anything.
Tell that to the People's Republic of Kalifornia.
 
Jan 6, 2005
35
1
71
Polution is a huge problem and it is something we have to manage now, rather than try the wait and see approach. We can just look at the problems in the fishing industry over the last 10 years to see that pollution, combined with poor harvesting management has devestated the oceans. Whether or not climatic change is entirely being wrought by "greenhouse gases" is a matter of debate, but not to the extent of political meanderings of the right and left, who have polarized the issue. It is possible that our planet is moving into a new climatic period due to shifting of its axis, but that does not account for the destruction patterns of our ozone.

Until Claude Allegre publishes something about his revalation, I am inclined to treat his statements with a grain of skeptism. He has been a contentious old fart, his entire life, albiet a brilliant one. This wouldn't be the first time he has made an outrageous claim because someone pissed him off . The fact that he is flying the face of what every geophysicist and geochemist has published so far, makes me wonder why he would make such claims without providing statistical evidence to support this. I think his statements are being exagerated and he is more concerned with the impracticle solutions being offered (Hydrogen Power) than a total refute of existing geochemical analysis.
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
His break with what he now sees as environmental cant on climate change came in September, in an article entitled "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" in l' Express, the French weekly. His article cited evidence that Antarctica is gaining ice and that Kilimanjaro's retreating snow caps, among other global-warming concerns, come from natural causes. "The cause of this climate change is unknown," he states matter of factly. There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the "science is settled."

Calling the arguments of those who see catastrophe in climate change "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers," Dr. Allegre especially despairs at "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters." The world would be better off, Dr. Allegre believes, if these "denouncers" became less political and more practical, by proposing practical solutions to head off the dangers they see, such as developing technologies to sequester C02. His dream, he says, is to see "ecology become the engine of economic development and not an artificial obstacle that creates fear."
Interesting that even the right wing now admits that climate change is occurring, despite earlier denials. Now their challenge to the orthodox scientists is how much is caused by humans and how much damage it will cause.

Not that many on the right seem willing to admit they've changed their minds and moved several steps closer to argeeing with the scientists they disparage.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,807
6,518
126
Oh come on. The guy is a wave-your-white-butt-in-the-air, French, surrender-monkey. He's going to fight global warming by throwing a piece of Brie at it.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
...
Is it me or is this becoming a trend? There have been a lot of stories like this recently. Maybe we're coming around to a more rational view on the issue? Recognizing the problems and inaccuracies with the science and the models that have been created with it thus far is the first step.

Science before politics.

It's you. You're right, there HAS been a trend of widely published stories of alternative thinking on the subject of climate change, but the trend is hardly indicative of "a more rational view", it's indicative of a step up in the FUD campaign against good science. You hear the same kind of bullshit every time a contentious scientific issue finds people with NON-scientific motivations on the wrong side (interestingly enough, these people seem to be conservatives FAR more often) of the issue. It basically amounts to a manufacturing a totally artificial debate, in the hopes that people like you will notice and mistake it for a real scientific uncertainty. The far more obvious example of this is "intelligent design", but this is pretty much the same thing.

It's really quite brilliant. You find any small uncertainty, anyone who sounds reasonably credible, and just publicize the hell out of the people and their ideas. It doesn't matter that for every guy like this there are literally hundreds of climatologists that disagree with him, because you don't hear about them unless you are actually a member of the scientific community (and this FUD-fest is hardly aimed at those kind of people). It's also extremely helpful because you can take any uncertainty and turn it into a conclusion with the proper framing. A scientist expressing uncertainty is a pretty regular part of real science, but to the crowd who can't figure out how to program their VCRs, it sounds like the scientist is saying the conclusions are total bullshit. If you read carefully (hah!), you'll notice that the scientist in question here is objecting to some of the METHODS (both political and scientific) used in the climate community, but he actually SUPPORTS the broad ideas of the folks who worry about humans damaging the environment. But of course you didn't see that, because that's not how this was presented...and because it's not what you wanted to see.

I couldn't agree more, science before politics. Unfortunately, you're on the wrong side of the issue...which isn't surprising seeing as conservatives have a very poor record when it comes to putting ANYTHING before politics. You're just looking for some pseudo-scientific justification for beliefs you already held before. Which is fine, but don't confuse it with the real thing.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
...
Is it me or is this becoming a trend? There have been a lot of stories like this recently. Maybe we're coming around to a more rational view on the issue? Recognizing the problems and inaccuracies with the science and the models that have been created with it thus far is the first step.

Science before politics.

It's you. You're right, there HAS been a trend of widely published stories of alternative thinking on the subject of climate change, but the trend is hardly indicative of "a more rational view", it's indicative of a step up in the FUD campaign against good science. You hear the same kind of bullshit every time a contentious scientific issue finds people with NON-scientific motivations on the wrong side (interestingly enough, these people seem to be conservatives FAR more often) of the issue. It basically amounts to a manufacturing a totally artificial debate, in the hopes that people like you will notice and mistake it for a real scientific uncertainty. The far more obvious example of this is "intelligent design", but this is pretty much the same thing.

It's really quite brilliant. You find any small uncertainty, anyone who sounds reasonably credible, and just publicize the hell out of the people and their ideas. It doesn't matter that for every guy like this there are literally hundreds of climatologists that disagree with him, because you don't hear about them unless you are actually a member of the scientific community (and this FUD-fest is hardly aimed at those kind of people). It's also extremely helpful because you can take any uncertainty and turn it into a conclusion with the proper framing. A scientist expressing uncertainty is a pretty regular part of real science, but to the crowd who can't figure out how to program their VCRs, it sounds like the scientist is saying the conclusions are total bullshit. If you read carefully (hah!), you'll notice that the scientist in question here is objecting to some of the METHODS (both political and scientific) used in the climate community, but he actually SUPPORTS the broad ideas of the folks who worry about humans damaging the environment. But of course you didn't see that, because that's not how this was presented...and because it's not what you wanted to see.

I couldn't agree more, science before politics. Unfortunately, you're on the wrong side of the issue...which isn't surprising seeing as conservatives have a very poor record when it comes to putting ANYTHING before politics. You're just looking for some pseudo-scientific justification for beliefs you already held before. Which is fine, but don't confuse it with the real thing.

Well stated.

I've said more or less the same thing to the ID-advocates so eager to tear down evolution but put forth no rational/logical explanation of their own. Ah so so content to go along on their merry ignorant way passing off their propoganda as "scientific debate" while making everyone stupider for listening to their horsecrap. It's ludicrous, it's pathetic to see it happen, and yet here we go again with "Wingnuts vs Science, Round II."
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: NeoV
Certainly there are cycles in the Earth's weather patterns - cycles we really don't understand or have any accurate record of.

That said, with the rise of modern man, and the crap we are putting in the air - I don't get how people can say that this new variable, which hasn't existed before in the Earth's history, is not having any effect.
Today a new star formed on the far side of the universe. Was the gravitational field around Earth affected? Certainly. Is the magnitude of the effect meaningful for any real calculation? No. I can say 'no' with certainty because we know very well how the distance between two bodies governs their gravitational attraction. The effects of man-made pollution on our climate are not so well-known. Therefore, it is not meaningful to say that a change in x necessarily causes a proportional change in y. Even if it does, you have no way of even guessing the proportionality constant (i.e. the magnitude of the effect), nor do you even know what 'x' might be. Most people think 'x' is carbon dioxide, but this view is increasingly dismissed by climatologists, who seem to think that water concentration is the most important factor.
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,976
3
71
Originally posted by: thraashman
I do think it's funny that the conservatives that agree with him would also be the ones most likely to disagree with him on other cases on the basis that he's French.
Only the ignorant liberals seem to think conservatives think the French are stupid for no reason. Many just don't trust them (rightfully) for their past actions. Would you trust the French?

The conservatives are not mindless like the liberals, as your post blatantly shows.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
67
91
Originally posted by: blackllotus
We may not understand the cycles, but we definately have a [partial] record of them.
Considering that our own survival is at stake, we definitely have a substantial interest in understanding them, and what we can do about maintaining an environment that supports our very existence.

Good planets are hard to find. :shocked:
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,303
144
106
sooo.. when are we going to move the argument from "who's causing global warming?" to "who is going to do something about it?"

Or do we just not care?

Or maybe it isn't even happening? :shocked:
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,721
4,824
136
Originally posted by: TehMac
Originally posted by: thraashman
I do think it's funny that the conservatives that agree with him would also be the ones most likely to disagree with him on other cases on the basis that he's French.
Only the ignorant liberals seem to think conservatives think the French are stupid for no reason. Many just don't trust them (rightfully) for their past actions. Would you trust the French?

The conservatives are not mindless like the liberals, as your post blatantly shows.

Good God, have you not read some of the posts here?
:roll: