Il est vrai que du monde au figaro, en passant par Libé ou TF1, tout a été fait pour minimiser le ClimateGate: tempête dans un verre d'eau, problème d'interprétation sur UN mel, etc...
Le Climate Gate est une affaire tellement peu importante, notre presse nous en a assuré, que la NAMIC, National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, une des principales associations professionnelles d'assureurs américaines, forte de 1400 compagnies membres encaissant 40% des primes d'assurance des dommages à la propriété et à la personne aux USA -- une paille ! -- a publié une lettre (PDF - résumé du New York Times) à l'intention de la NAIC, principal régulateur de l'activité d'assurance aux USA, dans laquelle elle présente les dangers, pour les compagnies, qu'il y a à accepter la doxa réchauffiste sans discernement.
En effet, selon la NAMIC, le régulateur de l'assurance, en obligeant les compagnies à définir et divulguer leur couverture du risque à partir de modèles issus des résultats de recherches du CIEC, lesquels deviennent hautement contestables du fait des révélations du ClimateGate, fourvoie les assureurs. Pire encore, il craint que les enquêtes effectuées par la "Task Force du Changement Climatique" de la NAIC n'introduisent des biais de réponses engageant de nouvelles décisions de régulation mal guidées. Toute cette régulation... Qui a dit que les USA étaient un pays ultra libéral ? Extraits de la lettre (PDF):
This letter is in response to the request by the Climate Change and Global Warming (EX) Task Force for comments on the following three items pertaining to the Insurer Climate Risk Disclosure Survey
(...)
In the months leading up to its adoption by the NAIC, NAMIC presented several arguments opposing the survey. One of these was that there is simply too much uncertainty about the nature of climate change—e.g., the rate at which it is occurring, the extent to which it is caused by human activity, its relationship to natural catastrophes such as hurricanes and droughts, and the economic trade-offs that would be entailed by various actions that might be taken to prevent further warming—for regulators to assume that all insurers have a material exposure to “climate risk” sufficient to justify mandatory “disclosure” of this purported risk to regulators and the public.
(...)
At the same time, proponents suggested that there was little room for doubt that “global warming is occurring,” as a 2008 Task Force white paper unequivocally declared. The white paper disposed of the debate over the extent and consequences of anthropogenic global warming in a single sentence: “[The Task force] believe[s] that there is ample evidence in support of this assumption in a variety of other reports and studies, so we have decided not to focus on the scientific aspects of global warming.”(...)
That decision was certainly questionable in 2008. Today, it is untenable in our view.
The unauthorized release in November 2009 of thousands of e-mails containing correspondence among scientists affiliated with the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) makes clear that insurers, regulators, and anyone else with a serious interest in climate change cannot afford the luxury of simply assuming that the “reports and studies” to which the Task Force white paper alludes present an accurate and unbiased picture of what is known about climate change.
(...)
The CRU e-mails show that a close-knit group of the world’s most influential climate scientists actively colluded to subvert the peer-review process (and thereby prevent the publication of research by scientists who disagreed with the group’s conclusions about global warming); manufactured pre-determined conclusions through the use of contrived analytic techniques; and discussed destroying data to avoid government freedom-of-information requests.
(...)
In short, because serious questions have been raised about the integrity of contemporary climate science, NAMIC believes it would be exceedingly risky for any insurance company to make important business decisions based on an uncritical acceptance of the dominant scientific paradigm on climate change. Put differently, we believe there is considerable risk involved in an approach to assessing “climate risk” that assumes the validity of any particular theory or set of beliefs about anthropogenic global warming.
(...)
We fear, however, that the wording of the survey questions, together with the public pronouncements of some regulators, will inhibit the expression of what might be viewed as unwelcome “contrarian” responses. This fear was reinforced by the overall tone and substance of the Task Force-sponsored Climate Risk Summit that took place in San Francisco on December 9, 2009. Rather than thoughtfully assess the implications that the CRU e-mail scandal holds for insurers and the Climate Risk Disclosure Survey process, all but one speaker ignored the matter entirely. That speaker, in facilely dismissing the e-mail scandal as a plot hatched by malevolent “contrarians,” personified the doctrinaire partisanship and intolerance toward dissent that is so clearly displayed in the CRU e-mails.
(...)
En très bref, les assureurs de la NAMIC estiment d'une part qu'il est très risqué pour ses compagnies membres, aujourd'hui, de prendre des décisions tranchées sur a base du "paradigme dominant" en matière de changement climatique, et d'autre part, ils craignent que les régulateurs refusent de constater que les incertitudes sicentifiques nées du Climate Gate ne changent l'évaluation des risques auxquels les assureurs sont réellement exposés.
Cette gaminerie d'un méchant Lobby capitaliste américain - En langage courant réchauffiste: "secte satanique" - est tellement insignifiante qu'elle fait juste l'objet d'un article dans le New York Times, petite gazette locale sans intérêt. A part, ça, le ClimateGate est une affaire secondaire, c'est notre presse de référence qui le dit.
Il remet juste en cause la politique de gestion du risque naturel adopté par les compagnies d'assurance de la première puissance mondiale. Pas de quoi lui trouver de l'importance, vous en conviendrez.
---------------
Poursuivre la lecture : Dossier "Réchauffement climatique" d'objectif Liberté.
---------------