>


Le Monde contacted the Elysée, which did not respond or specify the conditions under which the speech was written. It is impossible to know if Mr. Macron wrote this part himself. "Some people may view it as an awkward phrase. He wanted to express that the French people may have felt that some events were happening quicker than scientists had predicted," said Pascal Canfin, an MEP for Macron's party Renaissance. "But the accusations that he is unaware of the situation have no merit."

I think the press is taking it somewhat out of context, and that "He wanted to express that the French people may have felt that some events were happening quicker than scientists had predicted" makes sense to me. I have family members in  France that shared many personal, anecdotal experiences about the drastic changes in climate, while it wasn't at all on the mind of my family and friends in the Netherlands and Germany.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 92%. (I'm a bot)


"Who could have predicted the wave of inflation that was unleashed? Or the climate crisis and its spectacular impact on our country this summer?" asked the president.
After a long discussion on pensions and the need for the French to work more, Mr. Macron only mentioned the climate crisis once; stating that the "Energy transition is a battle that we must win."
"'Who could have predicted the climate crisis?' Funny, that's one of my favorite sayings to mock politicians who are out of touch with reality," tweeted Gonéri Le Cozannet, a geologist and co-author of the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.


Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: climate^#1 year^#2 French^#3 President^#4 Macron^#5 >

Actually someone figured it out in 1896. >

Who's that? Genuinely interested. >

They're referencing Svante Arrhenius. From this NASA page:  

In 1824, Joseph Fourier calculated that an Earth-sized planet, at our distance from the Sun, ought to be much colder. He suggested something in the atmosphere must be acting like an insulating blanket. In 1856, Eunice Foote discovered that blanket, showing that carbon dioxide and water vapor in Earth's atmosphere trap escaping infrared (heat) radiation.
In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.
In 1938, Guy Callendar connected carbon dioxide increases in Earth’s atmosphere to global warming. In 1941, Milutin Milankovic linked ice ages to Earth’s orbital characteristics. Gilbert Plass formulated the Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change in 1956. >

Oh wow! We had more than 100 years to mitigate the climate crisis and somehow governments of today still do not have the urgency to change things >

Because that doesn't make money and don't you know I need all of my days to be non-red colored? >

Recycling
Circular economy
Solar panels
Wind mills
Clean tech
Lean tech
Green tech
etc etc…
It really is a shame there’s no business to make in climate change >

Scientists over 100yrs ago. >

Maybe he means WHO (World Health Organization) could have predicted it /s.
Because they provided a formal assessment on Climate Change back in 1996. >

Professor Schellenhuber of Germany founded the Potsdam Institute for Climate Research in 1992, and counseled the then German Minister of Environment directly. If you are very well informed, you might have heard her name before, a physicist with the Name Dr. Angela Merkel. >

I thought she was an organic chemist. >

Well, it's complicated.

Merkel worked and studied at the Central Institute for Physical Chemistry of the Academy of Sciences
doctorate for her thesis on quantum chemistry >

goddamnit why can't we have a PHD physicist as our president >

Best I can do is Five Time Ultimate Smackdown Champion Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Camacho >

At least he could listen and follow good advice when presented with evidence. >

This was actually my exact response when people compared trump to him. He actually did what I'd want leader to do - recognize when to defer to someone who's more knowledgeable on a topic and then heed their recommendations >

And let's not act like being able to twin fire m60s from the hip doesn't also distinguish the two as well. >

Exxon did research on the subject a while ago but they suppressed the studies and paid scientists to refute the research. 
It could have been predicted and avoided. >

Exxon’s CO2 Greenhouse Effect Report of 1982 >

Yes, that's the study. Thank you >

Svante Arrhenius actually suggested that we should burn coal to prevent the next glacial period ("ice age"). >

Good job then. >

Theodore Fucking Roosevelt predicted it! >

The reason why I bring up Roosevelt is that he wasn't a scientist... and yet it was still as plain as day to him that conservation was necessary and not doing so would create an environmental disaster.
It was plain as day to a man without a scientific background in the first decade of the 1900s.
Macron has absolutely no room to say no one saw this coming when Theodore Roosevelt saw it coming with nothing but his own eyes. >

Svante Arrhenius predicted this in a paper 1896. >

And Greta is standing on his shoulders - he is her ancestor, for the record. >

Not doubting you, just like sources, cause this is cool. >

I didn't find anything on Greta Thunberg's wikipedia page, but she's mentioned on Svante Arrhenius' page near the bottom as a "distant relative". Greta's father is also called Svante. >

Thanks for this doing the looking! >

Everybody. Everybody predicted it for the past 80+ years. >

Longer. Svante Arrhenius predicted this in a paper 1896. >

Nobel Prize-winning Svante Arrhenius. >

Aside from a Nobel-prize winner (they're obviously too smart), who could've predicted the climate crisis??? >

The fucking oil and coal industry knew as late as the 80's that the greenhouse effect was caused by CO2, and they suppressed them knowledge as long as they fucking could. >

They knew earlier than that. They knew as soon as the first climate models started getting generated in the 60's and 70's. 
I think the 80's is when they started to figure out that any movement to address it would also undermine their profits and that's when the PR campaign started to make it seem like it was a questionable thing and not real. >

and they did such a good job people are still denying to this day even with numbers right in the face >

They are still doing a good job. It's not "did" a good job. There are still or at least were up till very recently, opinion pieces about how it "might be man made but we really don't know". 
They used the steve bannon approach and just "flooded the zone with shit". The flood though was a doubtful indifference. >

Svante Arrhenius, the winner of the 1906 Nobel Prize in Chemistry wrote a paper on atmospheric warming due to the increase in C02 released by fossil fuel combustion....in 1896. >

The ~~gaijin~~ kaiju Rodan from the 50s Japanese monster movie of the same name is an ancient dinosaur frozen in ice that is melted by global warming.
Literally been movie plot points for decades. >


gaijin  

Did you mean to write that or did you mean kaiju? >

The movie was Japanese but the monster wasn't so I guess it's technically correct. >

People talk a lot about Japan’s restrictive immigration and naturalization policies, but they usually focus on the human side of the issue. Its effect on kaiju communities gets absolutely no media coverage. >

My entire life I've always heard about how bad the situation is and how it's gonna get worse and still today we have dumbasses pretend like we just learned today that it's a thing.
sigh
I'll legitimately be surprised if world leaders actually do something about it in my lifetime. >

Just prepare yourself for endlessly hearing, "Well, yeah, climate change is happening. But it's too late to do anything about it now."
They'll always come up with excuses for not doing anything, or at least not nearly enough, to mitigate carbon emissions. >

"Yeah, is happening and we're going to reduce emissions in 2040, but for now we are going to keep giving mining and drilling permits and opening new coal and gas plants" >

Then, in 2038: Looks like we're gonna miss our target of 2040 so we're gonna go ahead and push our climate goals to 2065. >

Oh my fucking god yes or the opposite. "Yes this long term solution could be nice, but it doesn't make us reach the short term goal so we're not gonna do it at all" >

Slammed >

Every fucking article these days. >

You just slammed every article out there! >

You just slammed the slamming! >

BAH GAWD, THAT ARTICLE HAD AN EDITOR! >

HERE IT COMES WITH THE CHAIR >

AS GOD AS MY WITNESS, HE IS BROKEN IN HALF >

the oil moguls that covered it up >

Tell me you're clueless without saying "I'm clueless".
Sounds like when Trump said Nobody knew health care could be so complicated. >

Reminded me of when the U.K. ~~Foreign Secretary~~ EDIT: Brexit Secretary, who was an ardent supporter of Brexit, said he "hadn't quite understood" how reliant UK trade in goods is on the Dover-Calais crossing. >

God all these fucktards who pushed Brexit without knowing how stupid it was just piss me off so much. I just want to get them in a room and yell at them for half an hour sometimes it's just so frustrating that people in positions of power don't spend any time to learn anything. >

Oh they know these stuff, they also know that promising £350m per week for the NHS while sticking it to the liberals in Brussels will help them gain more money/power. Whatever happened to that charming fellow with the golden mop for a head anyways? >

That yellow bellied fop ran for the hills with cheese and wine, whilst getting replaced by a lettuce. >

Few nations in the world would have paid up to £30 billion in immediate economic damage for a head of lettuce but I guess that’s just part of the cost of BREXIT ain’t it? I hope the head of lettuce is doing a good job. >

That.. has to be a some kind of miswording or mental flub on his part.
I just don't see how you could possibly get elected and actually truly be that oblivious.
Though, when I think about the average politician.. oh god... oh god it's bad isn't it? >

He got elected only because his opponent was a pro-Putin far right politician >

He had more than one opponent, you know
And nobody really cares (or at least cared then) about the "pro-Putin"  part in France. Foreign policy doesn't factor in in elections like this. >

I know, I myself am a French. I was talking about the last round of the presidential elections (I'm not sure if this is what it's called for non-French people?), that was between him and LePen who is a pro-Putin far right politician. But you are right about the "pro-Putin" part. The French did not vote for her because she is part of the far-right, not because she is pro-putin >

Honestly in the top 4 of first turn results he was the only one not pro Putin. But I doubt this is a huge factor in the results, it's sadly not something many French care about. >

Try Carl Sagan >

Go even further. Ask the Myans, oh wait that civilization died out over a thousand years ago due in part to human made environmental damage. >

I mean it’s the first human cities in Mesopotamia. They irrigated too much for more yield and it caused the salinization of their fields. It’s still infertile there >

When you use a slightly salty river for flood irrigation and a volcano causes a 300ish year long rain drought. Your fields are going to get salty. 
They used barley until the fields became crusty salt flats. >

Basically 95% of climatologists and other earth related scientists for at least 60 years >

He is not the smartest baguette on the basket, is he?