Category Archives: Uncategorized

Cricket trumped

10 October. I stayed up last night to watch the second presidential debate. That was a mistake – I’ve been severely depressed all day. What a disgrace to America that man is: a fool, a knave, a liar and a sexual predator to boot. That he should have been able to make pile of money – backed up as he was by a very rich father – is not inconceivable, especially in the US; that he should be taken seriously as a candidate for the presidency, however, leaves me incredulous.

And shit scared.

Even if Trump loses (and that’s still an ‘if’), the fact that he’s come so far is calamitous. It tells us that the USA is not healthy, that a significant proportion of the population are truly stupid, and that the country cannot be relied on to maintain anything resembling a moral compass. During the first debate, Trump undertook to respect the result of the election, win or lose, but unsurprisingly he’s backtracked on that, and all those rednecks who’ve found an identity in his message will have to be pandered to.

Stepping back a little from Trump (and who wouldn’t? – I bet he wears too much aftershave), I cast Brexit in a similar light: a misinformed public unable to see through the bluster. Looking further afield, in terms of climate change, the Australians are the reddest of rednecks as far as coal is concerned – more Anglo-Saxons. Europe is streets ahead of the rest of the world in terms of CO2 emissions reductions, both achieved and planned. China is fast catching up and remains the only country to have announced a date for peak emissions. India is struggling: they have the same population problem as China but don’t have the ‘advantage’ of an authoritarian political system. Nonetheless, they’re investing heavily in renewables, with a 100GW solar complex due to come on line in 2022 (by way of comparison, the whole of the French nuclear park produces 63GW).

12 October. In short, it’s the Brits and their spawn who are fucking up the world. And they really have no excuse. I was astonished to come across these quotes from Margaret Thatcher the other day on Peter Sinclair’s invaluable climatecrocks.com (if you don’t have 11mins go straight to 6:40). “The [climate] change in the future is likely to be more fundamental and more widespread than anything we have seen hitherto. […] It’s comparable in its implications to the discovery of how to split the atom.” The lady was a chemist after all, she understood the danger and she spelt it out with admirable clarity. I confess I have no memory of that whatsoever, but then climate change was not yet a part of my search pattern – and anyway there was no Internet. I can’t remember stuff I never knew. All in all a good example of our generation’s insouciance… or should I say, more kindly, ‘ignorance’? It was incomparably more difficult for Joe Bloggs to acquire reliable information ‘in the old days’ – virtually impossible in fact. Scientists were not much better off: the current fruitful flourishing of inter-disciplinary studies is the result of specialists’ being able to consult sites like ScienceDaily to get a quick overview of what’s going on in other fields.

13 October. OK – I’m rambling. I’m miserable and I’m drinking too much. Let me try to draw the threads together.

Those Thatcher quotes make her something of a paradox: the scientist that she was understood what was at stake; but her corner shop economics led directly to deregulation, the globalisation of predatory capital and the acceleration of global warming. Dogma over data. To be fair (me being fair to Thatcher?) there wasn’t a lot of data available at the time. Thatcher must have gleaned information from the specialised journals she read and she made an accurate judgment. The science was sufficient to convince the experts that there was a nasty-looking trend, but it was insufficient to mount a full-scale, public attack on Reaganomics. The market and the politicians still believed in trickle down. What – I wonder – might Margaret have said to Ronnie if she’d known then what we know now?

23 October. Ten days later. I’ve been, er… HS (hors service) – “out of order”, as in vending machine. I came back from Ruffiac this afternoon after a week of cocooning at Marga’s, and it was with a certain pleasure that I took (or rather accompanied) Sam round the village and watched her checking out all the local points of interest.

Meanwhile, however, the second and third presidential debates have left the rest of the world either reeling in shock or rolling gleefully on the floor. But a significant proportion of the US population are still committed to Trump’s fascist, simplistic inanities. He and Clinton were pretty much level pegging in the polls till that tape of him bragging about his groping rights emerged, after which his numbers dipped. But not by much. Today Clinton is about 6pts ahead, but that’s far too close to the margin of error for my liking. Trump continues to up the stakes and, by questioning the validity of the electoral process, he’s become a threat to the democratic system itself… which – let’s face it – was already pretty wobbly in the USA. And all those rednecks are wound up and raring to go. In fact if Trump had set out to create the conditions for civil war he could have done no better.

I saw an interview on Channel 5 with a guy in Nashville (Tennessee) whose company makes camouflage uniforms for the military and is one of the few to have survived in the face of cheaper Chinese competition. Where he used to employ 300 people he only has 50 today, and presumably his profits have taken a corresponding hit. He is understandably upset about that, but what he doesn’t get is that out-sourcing and cut-throat competition are the logical extension of American capitalism. Neither does he realise that today more American jobs are lost to automation than to ‘foreigners’. Worst of all, he lumps everything into a dreadful amalgam that sees all Muslims as terrorists.

24 October. It’s all so sad – utterly disheartening. The climate is already going haywire and with the slowing of the AMOC, the North Atlantic heat exchange mechanism which is the very motor of the Golf Stream (see here for the pdf, or here for a 15min video), we ain’t seen nothing yet. The reality behind those terrifying numbers for sea level rise will soon become obvious and undeniable – alas too late. No one knows, no one cares.

(I sent my ad/article to the Dawkins Foundation by the way. No answer came the stern reply.)

25 October. I understand that you don’t have the time to stew over the woes of the world. Between the close links you maintain with your extended family and all your activities, you’re too busy living life to the full. I can make excuses for you because you fill your time with stuff that’s worth doing: you are not fooled by the charade of consumerism or the black pantomime that goes by the name of politics. You give much more than you take, all that you do is admirable and I would be the last to deny that the world needs people like you and yours.

But you are hardly typical of our generation, and tomorrow’s world needs people like me too. People who get up your nose – yes, I’m sure I do: “Oh dear, here goes Roger again, banging on about climate change…”

Andy Beckett has penned a grim piece for the Guardian about the power of the tabloids. It’s a salutary reminder of what we’re up against: i.e. completely unscrupulous demagoguery. A reminder too of the way the real world works. I tend to forget how unreasonable most people are and how easy it is to manipulate them. Silly of me. It’s not as though I’d forgotten how shocked I was in 1982 by the speed with which the British public became a baying horde of ‘Argie’-haters, nor the Sun’s infamous “GOTCHA” headline when the Belgrano went down. Apparently I don’t understand what newspapers are all about. I’m stuck with this ancient and honourable notion that newspapers accept the responsibility that goes with their reach and recognise that not only do they reflect public opinion – they lead it. Indeed they create it. Shameless rags like The Mail use a basic tool kit comprising selective quotes, capital letters and a relentless appeal to the lowest common denominator.

28 October. Brexit and Trump are two sides of the same coin: unscrupulous manipulation of public ignorance. The paradox that (I’m prepared to believe, many) politicians struggle to resolve lies in the fact that a degree of manipulation is right and proper. Governments – elected officials at all levels – have to lead, because most of their electors are woefully uninformed, short-sighted and parochial. Giving the public what it wants can only lead to bread and circuses. Politicians have the thankless task of identifying what the people need and then convincing them of it. Politics is indeed the art of the possible. It is – or one would like to think it is – about what you might call “scrupulous manipulation”.

“What the country needs” is clearly a subject for legitimate debate. But it ought not to be limited to balance sheet options, with fundamental philosophical choices swept under the carpet. Transforming those needs, once established, into medium- and long-term plans and specific projects is another kettle of fish. I venture to suggest it’s become nigh on impossible in a world where the technological options and their balance sheet impact change with bewildering frequency. If I’d had to sign off on a £25bn energy plan five years ago I’d have staked my money – your money – on wind turbines: proven technology which could only improve, source of jobs, and – above all, given the urgency – immediately deployable. In the light of my knowledge at the time it would have been the right decision, but it would have turned out to be wrong one.

Scrupulous manipulation (“ScruMan”?) is difficult because the issues are complex, and evaluating solutions requires knowledge, patience and sheer ‘brain power’ (by which I mean the brute force intelligence which enables one person to handle more variables than another). Joe Bloggs doesn’t typically rate very highly on any of these scales; but you can’t tell him that because he’ll get upset and punch your head – or exercise the psephological equivalent. So the ScruMen have to surround themselves with panels of experts, committees of enquiry and whatever else it takes to convince Joe that “we are acting in your best interests”. The process is fundamentally dishonest and nonetheless essential. Churchill was right about the relative merits of the democratic system. ScruMan’s task is made doubly hard by the fact that he has to convince people to vote for, whereas UnScrewMan only has to keep hammering out, “Say no and break it!” That’s what Brexit said and it’s what Trump is saying. Needless to say, it’s much easier to make people angry than it is to persuade them to be reasonable.

2 November. Trump’s latest and wildest claim is that Clinton would let in so many immigrants that the US population would triple, which is plainly stupid, yet media thunderings of, “You cannot take this man seriously!” are conspicuous by their absence. Peoples get the governments they deserve? Maybe. Philosophically speaking that’s a moot point. While I can’t deny a degree of Schadenfreude when the Brits shoot themselves in the foot, the very thought of ‘President Trump’ fills me with dismay. UK Remainers can emigrate; if Sarkozy were elected I could emigrate (preferably to a small island with a life expectancy equivalent to my own); but if Trump wins, there’s nowhere else to go.

*

Then again… I find myself asking, “So what?” All that changes is the timing. It merely brings the onset of chaos forward by a decade or two. For chaos there will be, one way or another, on an unimaginable scale. I don’t see how it can be avoided. As a mathematician you understand better than most the power of an exponential curve. My assumption has been that climate change would be the trigger. Accelerating sea level rise, extensive, frequent flooding and increasingly violent storms, etc, combined with infrastructure failure, lead to a surge in public awareness and media pressure on the fossil fuels industry. At the same time investors cut their losses and pull out of oil and gas which are left dead in the water. The markets collapse, stock trading is halted, worldwide finance is broken and no one has the faintest idea of how to mend it. The first power outages bring chaos and death on the roads in cities deprived of traffic lights, shopping malls close, Joe Bloggs panics and before you can say I-told-you-so there are troops on the streets, trying and failing to handle mass rioting, looting and arson.

6 November. But, even a year or two ago, who could have anticipated Trump? The idea that the end of capitalism could be brought about by one of their own is not without a certain irony. But it is a distinct possibility. Trump is patently unfit to be president. Everything we’ve seen over the last six months shows that he doesn’t have the knowledge, he doesn’t have the skills, he doesn’t have the breadth of vision. He does know how to lie and cheat and bluster, and he’s proved (as though proof were needed…) that, if you have enough money to start with, those qualities suffice to make a whole lot more. But his world view is that of an individual, arrogant, chauvinistic, privileged, white male – and it goes no further than the end of his dick. His world is divorced from reality. “We are going to put the miners back to work!” he claims. Oh yeah? And how’s he going to sell the coal they mine when renewables are so much cheaper? Presumably by taxing renewables, because all that climate change crap is a hoax! I ask you…

8 November. America is voting and I’m still shitting bricks. Clinton needs to win by a convincing margin if the US is to avoid civil war. If the result is close, all hell will break loose. Even, say, a 55-45 win might not be enough to convince the public that the election is over. Paradoxically, 60-40 might be worse, because the rednecks will cry “Foul!”

I shall be up at five tomorrow morning to watch the start of the first day’s play of England’s 5-Test series against India, in Rajkot. England have chosen to blood a 19-year old opening batsman, Haseed Hameed (see Dobell’s article for Cricinfo), which surprises me because Ben Duckett seemed to be bedding in well. England are the underdogs, India having won all their home Series over the last couple of years without – I think – having lost a single match. England’s top four – Cook, Hameed, Root & Ducket – and their makeshift spinners will have to step up or it could become quickly embarrassing. The toss is likely to be of paramount importance.

9 November. 01:00. On my way from Marga’s bed to mine. A mouthful of Sancerre, left over from Sunday’s oysters, goes down a treat, and I’ve added a big log to the fire, hoping that will do it till I get up in four hours’ time. I’ll have the cricket on one half of the screen and the Vendée Globe on the other. Will I dare to look up the election results? Sooner or later I shall have to.

05:00. Cook won the toss. 25-0 after 6 overs. The bowling has been excellent but the Indian slip cordon have put three catches down! Cook has been pinned on the crease several times and his footwork is non-existent. Young Hameed looks impressively unimpressed by the occasion.

Oh fuck! Trump has won Florida.

42-0 after 12 overs. Cook has got his feet moving and Hameed has just produced an absolute peach of a cover drive. Spin from both ends now. DRS is available, by the way.

47-1. First ball after drinks. Cook given lbw and doesn’t ask for a review. Missing leg by a good two inches! Enter Root.

Trump has won Iowa too. This is looking desperate.

76-2. Hameed lbw to Ashwin. Root told him to review but that was plumb. He made 31. A satisfying début. Enter Duckett.

102-3. Exit Duckett on the stroke of lunch. Excellent slip catch, diving forward, an inch off the ground.

278-3 after 80 overs. New ball available. Root/Ali partnership worth 178.

But who gives a flying fuck any more, with Trump in the White House and Republicans holding both Senate and House?

 

 

One hell of a speech by one hell of lady

I found Michelle Obama’s convention speech inspiring and astonishingly well delivered, and this Guardian article does it justice. However — as so often happens — I was bitterly disappointed by many of the comments posted to the discussion thread.

They range from the illiterate and virtually incomprehensible:

It is Sanders that wouldnt be a nightmare. Now you have very little of an option_ Or Trump, or warcrazy Killary that will burn the world, as she already did.

… and the pointless amalgam:

The mideast in turmoil? More poor Americans than ever? Barack’s buddies more rich than ever? The summer of killings? Iran laughing all the way to the bank? The Chinese saying don’t get up, we’ll just help ourselves to the South China Sea? The illegal influx? Blacks angrier than ever?

…to the needlessly cynical:

Like the Clintons before them these two will now cash in big time.

…and the totally meaningless:

Yes her life is great, all is fine. All surface no feeling, this woman could of done so much more in her 8 years as first lady. Nevermind though hey, she spoke some nice words.

The whole point is that, in this case at least, context is everything.

The Democrats have gone through their selection process, a hard fought contest between two genuinely different candidates, and Clinton won. But Sanders didn’t lose. On the contrary his campaign has succeeded in reintroducing the word “socialism” into American politics, and that will not have been in vain. His supporters carried the fight onto the Convention floor where they were organised and vociferous and rightly so. I can’t help comparing that with the Labour party conference in 2005 when Jacob Wolfgang, 82 and an activist since 1948, was thrown out and arrested under the Terrorism Act because he’d dared to heckle Jack Straw. Where was the vibrant democracy that Blair claimed to champion?

So Clinton won. Sure, she has blots on her CV (name me one major politician who doesn’t); and, sure, the American political system that got her where she is is rotten to the core; but she is now the Democrats’ candidate in the race against Trump. And it ought to be obvious to anyone with even a handful of flickering neurons between their ears that her first priority is to inflict a crushing defeat on that dangerous idiot Trump who wouldn’t know the difference between a fact and a bombastic, lying assertion if it slapped him in the face. To that end, the Democrats must now unite and back her to the hilt.

Speaker after speaker took the stage and tried to explain that, but they were shouted down. Then came Michelle Obama, and with a 15-minute speech replete with elegant, passionate, transparently honest and hard-hitting rhetoric she managed the two things that needed doing: she reset the party’s moral compass and she focused the delegates’ attention on the immediate, imperative, strategic goal – beating Trump.

That was one hell of a speech and Michelle Obama is one hell of a lady.

Brexit – letter to a young English friend

Brexit cartoonI don’t suppose you remember the old Flanders & Swann song with a refrain that ran:

The English, the English are best
I wouldn’t give tuppence for all of the rest

I mention it because none of this is about the “Brits”, is it? It’s not about the so-called United Kingdom either. It’s about England and the English. They hold the whip hand and they really don’t give tuppence for all of the rest.

England made a complete fool of itself with the 1956 Suez invasion and again in 1982 in the Falklands. On that occasion I remember writing to your father, “How does it feel to be on the side of the bad guys?” The English lined up with the bad guys again in 2003 when they followed Bush into Iraq, guns blazing, without the faintest idea of how they would deal with the consequences. And England’s fourth great international cock-up since the Second World War has been 40 years in the making. Right from the start of the Common Market (as it was in the beginning) the English wanted special treatment and demanded it as of right. All along, they’ve kept Europe at arm’s length, interested only in what they could get out of it. England has never shared European aims for something bigger, something better. It’s no coincidence that the worst effects of globalisation (i.e. predatory financial capitalism) are due to the UK and the USA: the UK is culturally closer to the USA than it is to Europe. In 1997 Tony Blair – elected with a huge majority – had the chance to change things. He could and should have dragged the UK, kicking and screaming, into the Eurozone, Schengen, and full integration with the European Union. But he funked it, preferring to curry favour with his rich pals in the City. That was the beginning of the end. Now the City (home of the UK’s main “industry” – i.e. money) will soon find itself on the outside looking in.

In response to this article in the Guardian (“If you’re young and angry about Brexit, you’re right to be”), I wrote:

I’ve been living in France for the last 35 years – more than half of my life – and before that I spent 7 years in Germany. I speak three European languages fluently and I’m one of the few real “Europeans” I know.

So I’ve been able to watch England from the outside for the last 40 years and I’ve seen what a shitty place it’s become. How it’s put the brakes on every European attempt to improve the lot of ordinary people. How selfish it is. How all it cares about is money. How its inequalities outstrip those anywhere else in Europe except perhaps Portugal and Greece.

And my reaction is: fucking good, now bugger off and let the rest of Europe get on with it!

One of the replies I received was, I can see some sense in your comment but in coming to this particular conclusion you’re potentially condemning 17 million people who probably aren’t as you described.” To which I replied, “True. But I’m thinking of the 350 million others.” You, my dear, are clearly among those 17 million and you feel angry and betrayed. I can’t blame you for that, but I’ve been warning you for years that England was accelerating along the wrong path.

Undoubtedly Europe as a whole now faces several very difficult years. The English will seek to prolong the chaos, under the illusion that all those foreigners will eventually knuckle under and give the spoilt child what it wants. But that ain’t gonna happen. The rest of Europe is thoroughly pissed off with the UK and will be glad to see the back of it. In Le Monde Brexit is already off the front page – it’s done and dusted.

I’ve seen it suggested (here) that Parliament could reverse the referendum result by refusing to trigger article 50, on the grounds that “Parliament is sovereign”. Wrong. The people are sovereign. They normally delegate that sovereignty to Parliament through the electoral process, but if the government asks the people to make a decision and Parliament doesn’t object, then Parliament has nothing more to say. You and I know that the people were manipulated by a campaign based on lies and shameless xenophobia, but – be that as it may – the people have spoken. A referendum is a very blunt instrument – there’s always the risk it will lead to narrow margins and extreme polarisation. It can tear nations (and families) apart. But once the people have spoken, the politicians have no choice but to do as they’re told. For Parliament to even consider doing otherwise would be adding insult to injury and would unleash fury and internal strife, probably on a scale not seen since Cromwell’s time.

The French finance minister said the other day that he had the impression the UK “hadn’t thought this through and didn’t realise what the consequences would be” (does that sound familiar?). I find it quite extraordinary that Cameron and his bunch don’t seem to realise that they are now powerless. Only yesterday the prime minister (well… sort of) was bleating on about how Europe had to leave him room to manoeuvre on immigration. And as for that fool Johnson, how can he possibly claim that the UK will – as a matter of course – still have unfettered access to the single market? Theresa May for prime minister? She backed the Remain camp but didn’t take much part in campaigning and then advocated a withdrawal from the European convention on human rights! See what I mean? They just don’t get it.

You wrote, “I have been grieving about the fucking mess we are now in. This country no longer represents me.” And my heart bleeds for you. But not for England. As for me, I’ve started filling in forms to apply for French nationality – come and join me.

Open letter to a multi-billionaire

I would like to suggest a way you might usefully employ some of the financial and managerial resources you have at your disposal.

I have no personal axe to grind and I am not asking you for money or a job.

*

The world’s scientists have convincingly made the case for taking climate change seriously, but the battle for public opinion is going badly.

Reputable news media—even the BBC—cling to the notion that they are duty-bound to accord equal space to “both sides” of the argument, naively preserving the pretence that all opinions are of equal value and ignoring the fact that the debate as such is already over. The question now should be one of planning and organisation: how are we going to live with a climate gone haywire?

Yet irresponsible journalists, self-appointed gurus and—yes—some scientists, who ought to know better, continue to publish misleading piffle based on data that are out of date, misinterpreted or quite simply invented. And they get away with it.

The tabloid press and other forms of journalistic lowlife are ever ready to fulminate over the slightest allegation of a flaw in the scientific data, unscrupulously betraying their remit. And they too get away with it.

Science bloggers spend their nights searching out, analysing and refuting  spurious, error-strewn articles (in addition to somehow holding down fulltime jobs) but they are preaching to the converted.

The inexhaustible George Monbiot takes on Ian Plimer in a live TV debate and thoroughly routs him. But Plimer carries on as though nothing had happened and the media still report what he says.

It’s the same old story: the good guys fight fair and the bad guys fight dirty. And, as ever, they get away with it.

*

Now, I’m not saying that we should fight dirty too, but I am suggesting that we could be fighting a damn sight harder.

More precisely, I’m thinking of the remorseless way Disney and Microsoft pursue licence infringements. I’d like to see you applying the same hardball approach to the purveyors of climate change drivel, ranging in scale and impact from the likes of Plimer to the mighty Sunday Times itself.

The Plimers never retract, never apologise. The ST apologised for its January 2010 “Amazongate” article, albeit six months later, when the damage had already been done.

But that’s too easy. And the matter is too important to be glossed over with an apology.

Whenever newspapers or publishers are exposed for peddling inaccuracy, misrepresentation and falsehood they should be punished and punished hard. We have to find a way of making them think very hard before they toss disinformation at the general public; and if they persist it should cost them money—a lot of money—in punitive fines and astronomical legal costs.

You have the muscle to do that.

What I suggest is that you let loose the lawyers. You don’t necessarily have to win cases—just make sure they are widely reported, last a long time and cost a fortune.

Yours sincerely,

“Anthropocène” confirmée : oui, mais…

Une nouvelle étude publiée dans « Science » le jeudi 7 janvier 2016 confirme que les activités humaines ont fait basculer la Terre dans une nouvelle ère géologique, appelée l’Anthropocène.

Dr Colin Waters du British Geological Survey dit: “Depuis longtemps les humains ont un effet sur l’environnement, mais récemment nous assistons à la dispersion rapide et globale de nouveaux matériaux, notamment l’aluminium, le béton et les plastiques, dont on trouve la trace dans les strates sédimentaires.”

Pendant l’Holocène [les dernières 11.700 années] les sociétés humaines ont avancé en domestiquant les terres afin d’augmenter la production de nourriture ; elles ont construit des centres urbains et sont devenues adeptes de l’exploitation des ressources de la Terre en termes d’eau, de minerais et d’énergies. L’Anthropocène se caractérise par une période de changement environnemental rapide, dû à l’augmentation fulgurante de la population humaine et de la consommation pendant la “grande accélération” du milieu du 20ème siècle. 

Cette étude est sans aucun doute parfaitement respectable parce qu’elle est publiée dans Science, mais je me demande si elle va assez loin. J’irais même jusqu’à la qualifier de dentelle académique, puis qu’il y a dans la pièce un éléphant dont personne ne parle.

Nous savons, grâce aux carottages antarctiques, que depuis au moins 850.000 ans la Terre a oscillé tranquillement entre des périodes glaciaires et interglaciaires, avec des différences de température de seulement 15°. C’est très peu par rapport à ce qui se produit sur nos planètes voisines, Mars et Vénus, et les modifications de climat s’opéraient sur des périodes de dizaines de milliers d’années. On pourrait presque parler d’une remarquable stabilité.

Pendant toute cette période la proportion de CO2e*  atmosphérique variait entre 200 et 300 ppm en fonction de la température, mais la quantité totale de CO2e dans le système était constante. Dès les années 1750 nous avons commencé à injecter du CO2nouveau dans le système, et depuis le milieu du 20ème siècle les quantités de ce CO2e nouveau augment de manière exponentielle. Les océans en absorbent beaucoup (environ 30%) mais le reste va directement dans l’atmosphère où la proportion de CO2e est maintenant de 400 ppm. Par ailleurs, selon les projections de la COP21, les 500 ppm seront atteintes dans les 15 à 20 ans à venir. Les océans ne peuvent plus suivre et l’excédent de CO2e dans l’atmosphère où il a un impact direct sur l’effet de serre. Nous constatons d’ores et déjà  les ravages occasionnés par un seul petit degré de réchauffement. Au fur et à mesure que nous nous approcherons des 500 ppm, les choses iront de pire en pire, de plus en plus vite, la puissance des courbes exponentielles étant absolument impitoyable.

Alors, l’Anthropocène représente-t-il un changement d’ère géologique ? Sans aucun doute. Mais à une échelle beaucoup plus vaste que les traces sédimentaires révélées par cette étude. En effet, nous avons inversé la dynamique de base du Système Terre. Désormais c’est le niveau de CO2e atmosphérique qui détermine et déterminera la température. Nul ne peut savoir aujourd’hui vers quel monde cela nous mènera, ni même si notre civilisation survivra, mais une chose est sûre : le voyage sera tout sauf confortable.


* “Equivalent” : c’est-à-dire, CO2 + les autres gaz qui contribuent à l’effet de serre de manière moins importante.