Dans un de ses éditoriaux furibards que la Terre entière lui envie, Le Monde lance une philippique contre tous ceux qui ont osé critiquer le GIEC, tous ces climatosceptiques (pas "négationnistes", heureusement) payés bien sûr par les pétroliers. Le texte est d'une indigence intellectuelle consternante, on croirait lire un édito de l'Humanité au temps de Lysenko.
Je me permets de reproduire deux commentaires consacrés au sujet dans l'excellent blog de Bishop Hill :
"Acton (and Russell) seem to miss a rather obvious point: 'Science' has at its core a requirement for disclosure, openness, sharing of data, and replication. The value of scientific knowledge is not determined by some panel, but by whether, through time, science conducted according to such principles withstands scrutiny and its hypotheses withstand repeated attempts at falsification. Climate science relies too much on nonsense such as speculative extrapolation (use of the word 'could'), and bringing evidence to the theory (the use of 'consistent with'), rather than the generation of falsifiable hypotheses. Where it has produced falsifiable predictions (water vapour will rise with temperature, there will be a hotspot at a particular place in the atmosphere, etc) its hypotheses are not well supported by evidence.
As the US Supreme Court ruled in Daubert v Merril Dow, science is a process. It is oxymoronic to suggest that the process can be flawed, but the science sound. End of story"
ainsi que :
"Allow me to put it another way, instead of scientists, these people were hedge managers, and they were found by an inquiry, run by fund managers and bankers, of not being involved in insider trading, but being part of a fan club. Moreover, though the figures they published for investors were misleading, the investors could have obtained the raw data and worked out that they were being sold a lemon on their own. Would you be so forgiving?"
L'humour anglais, ce n'est pas un mythe...