The straw and the beam Article pagination
On page 2 of its edition of Monday, February 24, Le Temps answers several questions concerning climate change and this reading is quite interesting for non-scientists, including myself.
But if at least we had stopped there. Why was it necessary to complete these passages with contempt, accusations and bludgeoning?
Whether it's Ms. Minet's editorial or page 3 of Le Temps, which she also signs, anything that could lead to thinking intelligently about the solutions needed to deal with global warming is polluted by a detestable state of mind.
The bad faith a priori of those who doubt the anthropogenic nature of the cause of global warming.
I liked a @YouTube video https://t.co/zTraDSYfDS How to add more olive oil to your diet
— Chiquita Wed Jul 04 17:30:52 +0000 2018
“Our role in its occurrence is no longer in doubt,” writes Ms. Minet in her editorial.
However, this is not what the 2015 IPCC report said in Le Temps of August 18, 2018 (so 18 months ago!): "It is extremely likely that human activity is the cause of the warming observed since the mid-twentieth century”. This formula – of which I have put the two words in bold – is perfectly honest and does not imply that those who still have doubts and express them are only hoary old people or sold to lobbies. Admittedly, Mrs. Farine says well, in her editorial, “some are in good faith”, but page 3 of Le Temps which offers a classification of climate skeptics omits this category. If you are “climatosceptic”, according to Le Temps, you have a “nuisance potential” (sic). One is either “indifferent”, “old professor”, “conspiratorialist”, “lobbyist” or “realist who has put on a false mustache to give himself an air of respectability”.
Shouldn't it be necessary to supplement art. 261 bis of the penal code by sanctioning anyone who publicly incites hatred or discrimination against a person or a group of people because of their attachment to a climate theory”?
