Recognized avalanche
specialist, Switzerland Werner Munter plan night and day for three years on
global warming. And for him, man has nothing to do with it!
A week ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was again
pointing accusingly at the man and the CO2 he produced as the main culprits of
global warming. For Werner Munter, a world-renowned expert on avalanches, who
has been compulsively examining the phenomenon for three years, "these
people are fools who repeat nonsense, know it and are paid for! The Bernese
received us at length in his apartment in Arolla (VS) to support these
accusations between a slice of dried meat and two glasses of Cornalin. Its
climatosceptic diagnosis, far from being that of a hurluberlu, is shared by
eminent scientists including two Nobel Prizes. He explains it to us.
You say that man has nothing
to do with warming. Why?
First of all, I do not dispute the warming itself. I found it as a mountain guide when I saw the glaciers retreat. The one that faces us for example has lost 100 m since I bought this apartment in 1989. In 2005, the Bonatti pillar of the Drus collapsed due to the warming of permafrost. What I am calling into question are the causes of this warming. They have nothing to do with man or with CO2 as we taught. I came to this conclusion for three reasons.
First of all, I do not dispute the warming itself. I found it as a mountain guide when I saw the glaciers retreat. The one that faces us for example has lost 100 m since I bought this apartment in 1989. In 2005, the Bonatti pillar of the Drus collapsed due to the warming of permafrost. What I am calling into question are the causes of this warming. They have nothing to do with man or with CO2 as we taught. I came to this conclusion for three reasons.
What are his reasons?
The first is simply the analysis of climate data reconstructed over millions of years. In the last 10,000 years alone, there have been five peaks of temperature comparable to the one we are experiencing. These optima correspond to natural cycles. In the middle Ages, for example, it was possible to go to the valley of Aosta from Arolla with the herds because the glacier no longer existed. In the first two optima, the Sahara was a savannah with lakes, trees and elephants. Before that, for hundreds of thousands of years, it was warmer than today. And sometimes up to 7 degrees warmer! The IPCC is concentrating on the last 150 years. Suffice to say that he looks around his navel. Paleoclimatic reconstructions also show that for hundreds of millions of years there has been no correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature on earth.
The first is simply the analysis of climate data reconstructed over millions of years. In the last 10,000 years alone, there have been five peaks of temperature comparable to the one we are experiencing. These optima correspond to natural cycles. In the middle Ages, for example, it was possible to go to the valley of Aosta from Arolla with the herds because the glacier no longer existed. In the first two optima, the Sahara was a savannah with lakes, trees and elephants. Before that, for hundreds of thousands of years, it was warmer than today. And sometimes up to 7 degrees warmer! The IPCC is concentrating on the last 150 years. Suffice to say that he looks around his navel. Paleoclimatic reconstructions also show that for hundreds of millions of years there has been no correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature on earth.
Your second argument?
The concentration of CO2 - which is either passing a vital gas and not a poison - into the atmosphere is negligible. There is a little less than 0.5 ‰ in the atmosphere, and up to 5% of this amount is attributable to humans. For one million molecules of air, there are only 20 molecules of CO2 produced by man. And every year, our industrialization adds 4 molecules of CO2 for every million molecules of air, but half is absorbed by the oceans and plants. And we want to make us believe that this tiny proportion due to man is a catastrophe? I cannot believe it (laughs).
Why then does the official thesis make a near consensus? Your fellow scientists are not all fools!
The concentration of CO2 - which is either passing a vital gas and not a poison - into the atmosphere is negligible. There is a little less than 0.5 ‰ in the atmosphere, and up to 5% of this amount is attributable to humans. For one million molecules of air, there are only 20 molecules of CO2 produced by man. And every year, our industrialization adds 4 molecules of CO2 for every million molecules of air, but half is absorbed by the oceans and plants. And we want to make us believe that this tiny proportion due to man is a catastrophe? I cannot believe it (laughs).
Why then does the official thesis make a near consensus? Your fellow scientists are not all fools!
These theories are aimed at
making us feel guilty. When scientists like the IPCC say they want to save the
planet, I say they are not credible. They lie to safeguard their economic
interests. Because there is a whole business behind the fight against global
warming. There is a will to frighten people, for example, by dramatizing the
rise of the oceans, while the latter rise only 2 to 3 mm per year! It is also
an intellectual manipulation to speak of CO2 in tons rather than in proportion.
Tons, it impresses, but remember that the atmosphere weighs
5,000,000,000,000,000 tons!
Your last argument is that the official thesis contradicts the laws of physics. That is to say?
Your last argument is that the official thesis contradicts the laws of physics. That is to say?
That of thermodynamics in
particular. To make it simple: the earth is 15 ° on average. The supposedly
polluted CO2 atmosphere is roughly at -30 ° to 10 km altitude. That it warms
the Earth which is much warmer than it is an aberration. Thermodynamics tell us
that the heat always goes towards the cold and never in the opposite direction,
which corresponds to our daily experience.
So in the end, how do you explain this damn warming?
I do not have an answer because too many factors come into play. On the other hand, I have assumptions. I suspect, for example, that variations in the intensity of solar radiation - which respond to cycles - play a central role, as do the complex and unknown nuclear processes at the center of our Earth. Be that as it may, it is the arrogance to believe that in 150 years of industrialization we have changed the climate. Nature is much stronger than man, we are not masters of the Earth!
So in the end, how do you explain this damn warming?
I do not have an answer because too many factors come into play. On the other hand, I have assumptions. I suspect, for example, that variations in the intensity of solar radiation - which respond to cycles - play a central role, as do the complex and unknown nuclear processes at the center of our Earth. Be that as it may, it is the arrogance to believe that in 150 years of industrialization we have changed the climate. Nature is much stronger than man, we are not masters of the Earth!
Saisi!
No comments:
Post a Comment