https://disk.yandex.com/i/2GarDXwSo-q6ig
samedi 8 mars 2025
vendredi 7 mars 2025
jeudi 6 mars 2025
La CIA n'oublie pas
La raison que De Gaulle avait donné pour que la France fasse ses propres bombes atomiques était de se doter d'un argument imparable pour pouvoir refuser d'héberger les bombes atomiques américaines sur notre sol, avec tous le pouvoir pour les Américains et tous les risques pour les Français, ce qui aurait annulé le principe même de la dissuasion nucléaire.
L'Allemagne, l'Italie, la Belgique, n'ont pas ce luxe, et risquent une représaille nucléaire quasi-automatique si des avions Américains lâchent une ou des bombes nucléaires sur l'ex-URSS/Russie après avoir décollé de ces bases.
Il n'est pas difficile d'imaginer ce qu'un politicien US préférera, une bombe lancée depuis l'Europe qui explose en Russie après quelques minutes et qui ne provoquera probablement pas de riposte nucléaire sur le sol Américain, avec une bombe lancée depuis les États-Unis, qui a besoin de plus de temps pour arriver, et déclenchera une riposte automatique et inévitable.
Apparemment Macron n'a pas compris.
Espérons que des militaires Français lui expliqueront, publiquement si nécessaire, un peu de stratégie militaire et d'histoire plutôt récente, même s'il n'était pas né à l'époque.
La CIA, elle, n'oublie pas, et continue fort logiquement (y compris par une de ses officines médiatiques, ci-bas) de pousser sa charrue, quel que soit l'administration en cours.
https://theconversation.com/la-dissuasion-nucleaire-francaise-est-elle-credible-face-a-la-russie-251243
mercredi 5 mars 2025
I am Zelensky
Russia seems to have finally come to terms with the idea that it's kicked out of Europe, after 200 years of brutal European invasions.
The United States also seem to have cut the umbilical cord, and accepted they are not a distant European colony, not even in the cultural sense. The realisation was condensed in the short, uneasy dialogue of US president Donald Trump and British P.M. Keir Starmer in front of the journalists.
And Europe now also realise they are on their own, as expressed by the Polish P.M. Donald Tusk before taking off for the emergency European meeting in London: "why are 500 million European asking 300 million Americans to protect them from 140 million Russians"? (Donald Tusk could also ask why Napoleo returned from Russia with only 10% of his 600,000-strong army, and the Europeans allies of Germany couldn't even return from Russia, despite their massively genocidal tactics, and how today's adventure would succeed where the previous 2 failed so horribly!)
The European empire was hoping to survive by proxy, through the United States. The Project for a New American Century (PNAC), officially kicked off on 11 September 2001, with a few thousand New Yorkers as unwilling sacrificial victims, immediately followed by millions of Afghans, Irakis, and many, many other unwilling and unsuspecting people.
It's not working. The only thing that keeps the empire afloat, the acceptance of the US dollar as an international currency, is being maintained only to keep the US as quiet as possible while their power of nuisance slowly fades. Yemen shoots US drones one after another and scares off US aircraft carriers, once the pride of their military, who have not yet been able to fire hypersonic missiles after 30 years of efforts.
Now everyone is on their own. The Americans, the Russians, the Chinese, the Europeans, have all accepted the end of the empire.
It is refreshing, but now that deadly illusions are collapsing, is the time more than ever to know our values, and in our times of unprecedented freedom and responsibility, to have the courage to stand by what we really love, by what is really worthy of our respect and love: Other humans, our sisters and brothers.
The few of us who have been spared by war so far, are all like president Zelensky now: The free supply of cocaine is ending, and we are faced with our naked life. What are we, what do we want really?
dimanche 2 mars 2025
Conspiracy theory
50 years ago a publishing house was founded in France, called "alternative et parallèles", it published "le Catalogue des Ressources", the French translation of the "Whole Earth Catalog", a wonderful annual publication, ancestor of the internet according to its editor Stewart Brand. They also published in 1979 the French translation of "Shelter" by Lloyd Kahn, which they translated as "Habitats - constructions traditionnelles et marginales". This glorious publishing house has published many excellent books, including the first Earth Construction Manual written by CraTerre -probably the first earth construction manual in the world, and still one of the best- and still exists, under the name "éditions alternatives".
The French painter Pierre Fournier wrote in the first editorial of La Gueule Ouverte in 1972, "Very quickly readers wrote to me to urge me to found, and quicker than that, a "Rousseauist party" intended to "gather the marginals". The marginals - how right they are! not wanting to be gathered, and especially not within a party, whatever its -ism, there was probably better to do".
At the time we were longing to be "marginal" and "different", the "Autrement" (literally, "Differently") publishing house also started in 1975!
"Parallel" schools, "alternative" medicines were cool.
Today, you are no longer "alternative" or "parallel" but "sectarian" or "conspiracy theorist"!
What happened?
Many theories declared unscientific by the authorities (washing your hands before operating on a patient, the idea that cigarettes or asbestos cause cancer, or that the continents move, etc.) have turned out to be true, and many conspiracy stories put forward by the authorities (that Iraqi soldiers took babies out of incubators in 1991, that Saddam Hussein's anthrax rockets could reach London in 45 minutes in 2003, that Covid-19 appeared in a wild animal market, etc.) have turned out to be false.
How do you separate truth from falsehood? In my experience there is no recipe, and no short-cut to actual work. Sometimes you have to not be afraid of making mistakes, and examine a question as freely as possible. And when you understand that you have made a mistake, correct yourself.
I believed, at least once, in a conspiracy theory that I finally recognized was false. And my memory is playing tricks on me! I was quite surprised to discover, in 2008, one of my emails in which I made fun of a friend who said that no plane had crashed into New York on September 11, 2001. I advised her not to spread gossip. In 2008! I thought I had understood long before. Well, no. In 2008, I firmly believed it. Without ever having thought about it, in fact. I was sure of it, that's all. No time to waste on that. I don't know when I started to think about it. In 2010 I had changed my mind. Maybe thanks to this friend, in fact. The problem with beliefs is that we don't notice them. Neither when they arrive, nor when they go away. So "common sense" is not a reliable enough guarantee, and there are surely still false conspiracy theories that I believe in, that I am not yet aware of... After all, this is what Gandhi, René Girard, Jacques Derrida, Julian Assange and many others less well-known have pointed out: To fight structural violence you first have to uncover it, and this process of uncovering (that Gandhi called non-violence) is at the receiving end of a self-righteous and exacerbated violence, that we were more comfortable keeping unnoticed. The uniquely paradoxal song by Pink Floyd, 'comfortably numb', describes this desire to be unaware, this desire for numbness. The paradox is that the song invites a heightened awareness of this desire for numbness, which usually remains unnoticed... and so comfortably so!
The discovery that traditions, if honestly worked with, can come to the rescue of the marginals, is a paradox only in apparence, and this is what "Éditions alternative et parallèles" and others, like architect Hassan Fathy thrived in, what philosopher Jacques Derrida theorised, and it is what Yeshayahu Ben-Aharon called, 14 years ago, "the reversal of the reversal" ('The Event in Science, History, Philosophy and Art').
But there is one thing that today prevents us from discovering our own errors: Denouncing all criticism as a "conspiracy theory". This expression is a convenient refuge for our laziness, the mother of lies!
Joel Sternheimer said that science is the daughter of ethics. Lies are the sons of laziness...
Complotisme
Il y a 50 ans une maison d'édition débutait qui s'appelait "alternative et parallèles", elle publiait "le Catalogue des Ressources", la traduction Française du "Whole Earth Catalog", une publication annuelle formidable, ancêtre de l'internet selon son rédacteur Stewart Brand. Cette maison d'éditions a publié beaucoup d'excellents livres, et existe encore, sous le nom "éditions alternatives".
Pierre Fournier écrivait dans le premier editorial de La Gueule Ouverte en 1972, "Très vite des lecteurs m'écrivirent pour m’enjoindre de fonder, et plus vite que ça, un « parti rousseauiste » destiné à « regrouper les marginaux ». Les marginaux – comme ils ont raison – n’ayant pas envie d’être regroupés, et surtout pas au sein d’un parti, quel que soit son isme, il y avait sans doute mieux à faire".
A l'époque on se vantait d'être marginal et différent, les éditions "Autrement" ont aussi démarré en 1975 !
Les écoles "parallèles", les médecines "alternatives" étaient très cool.
Aujourd'hui, vous n'êtes plus "alternatif" ou "parallèle" mais "sectaire" ou "complotiste" !
Que s'est-il passé ?
Beaucoup de théories déclarées non scientifiques par les autorités (se laver les mains avant d'opérer un malade, l'idée que la cigarette ou l'amiante donnent le cancer, ou que les continents bougent, etc.) se sont avérées vraies, et beaucoup d'histoires de conspiration avancées par les autorités (que les soldats Irakiens avaient sorti les bébés des couveuses en 1991, que les fusées d'antrax de Saddam Hussein pouvaient atteindre Londres en 45 minutes en 2003, que le Covid-19 est apparu dans un marché d'animaux sauvages, etc.) se sont avérées fausses.
Comment séparer le vrai du faux ? Il n'y a pas de recette. Il faut parfois de pas avoir peur de se tromper, et examiner une question aussi librement que possible. Et lorsqu'on comprend que l'on s'est trompé, se corriger.
J'ai cru, au moins une fois, à une théorie du complot dont j'ai finalement reconnu qu'elle était fausse. Et ma mémoire me joue des tours ! J'ai été tout surpris de découvrir, en 2008, un de mes emails ou je me moquais d'une amie qui disait qu'aucun avion n'était tombé sur New York le 11 septembre 2001. Je lui conseillais de ne pas colporter des ragots. En 2008 ! Moi qui croyais avoir compris bien avant. Et bien non. En 2008, j'y croyais fermement. Sans avoir jamais réfléchi, d'ailleurs. J'en étais sûr, c'est tout. Pas de.temps à perdre avec ça. Je ne sais pas quand j'ai commencé à réfléchir. En 2010 j'avais changé d'avis. Peut-être grâce à cette amie, d'ailleurs. Le problème avec les croyances c'est qu'on ne s'en rends pas compte. Ni quand elles arrivent, ni quand elles s'en vont. Donc il y a sûrement encore des théories du complot fausses auxquelles je crois, dont je ne me suis pas encore aperçu que j'y crois...
Mais il y a une chose qui aujourd'hui empêche de découvrir ses propres erreurs : Dénoncer toute critique comme une "théorie du complot". Cette expression est un refuge commode pour notre paresse, mère du mensonge !
Joël Sternheimer disait que la science est fille de l'éthique. Le mensonge est fils de la paresse...
7 janvier 2015, rue Nicolas Appert
L’attentat terroriste du 7 janvier 2015 à Charlie Hebdo – et ceux du Bataclan et de l’hyper casher – étaient des rituels satanistes destinés à ancrer la France dans l’OTAN, et ils ont partiellement réussi.
Comme souvent ils font d’une pierre deux coups, et ils n’ont pas loupé Charb, profondément antiraciste, ni ses collègues, et ils auraient sûrement préféré que Nicolino ne survive pas.
Le seul moyen de surmonter le satanisme c’est d’examiner très attentivement les faits (qui a fourni la logistique et les renseignements, tiré profit du crime, etc.) et d’écouter très attentivement son cœur et celui des autres, y compris et surtout de ceux qu’on n’aime pas (et cela n’implique pas le mépris, mais le respect), et se méfier des récits des « faiseurs ». Il n’y a pas de recette. Nous sommes tous au pied du mur. Y compris pour ne pas être, nous non plus, des « faiseurs »…
samedi 1 mars 2025
Marwa Osman
The spectacle of Volodymyr Zelensky’s visit to the Oval Office wasn’t just a diplomatic embarrassment, it was a brutal reality check for the world order that has dominated for decades.
The West, which once cloaked its imperial demands in the language of "freedom" and "democracy," has finally shed the last mask.
Trump didn’t even bother with the pretense. He made it clear: Ukraine is a bargaining chip, not an ally.
This is the inevitable fate of those who place their survival in the hands of a declining empire.
Zelensky was paraded as a leader of a Western-backed war, only to be discarded the moment his usefulness waned. The arrogance of American exceptionalism has always depended on carefully crafted illusions, but Trump, in his crude transactional style, has exposed the game for what it is.
The consequences of this moment will reverberate far beyond Kyiv or Washington. The world is already divided between those clinging to the crumbling unipolar system and those forging a new, multipolar reality. This rift will widen. Alliances will harden. And as desperation fuels reckless decisions, the world inches closer to what could be the final great war of our era.
When history looks back at this moment, it won’t just see Zelensky’s shame, it will see the unmistakable signs of an empire in its last throes, willing to burn everything before accepting its own decline.
Marwa Osman, Beyrouth
https://t.me/Marwa_OsmanLB
Macron, first Trumpist?
Indéboulonable Macron 1er, déjà prêt à devenir le... 1er Trumpiste d'Europe !
The karma of Sylvestre de Sacy
Pepe Escobar: From Donbass to South Lebanon -- and all across BRICS --it’s all about Resistance
February 28, 2025
For those of us who keep tracking the slings and arrows trespassing the wider geopolitical chessboard, non-stop, it’s an immensely powerful – and humbling – experience to be one day contemplating devastated Avdeyevka, in the heart of the war in Donbass, and one week later struggling to understand the senseless devastation inflicted on villages in south Lebanon, literally in front of occupied Palestine.
It's all about the transcending power of Resistance – uniting Orthodox Christianity in the black soil of Novorossiya to political Shi’ism in the Eastern Mediterranean.
It’s this close-up, in microcosm, of the tortuous, bloody, pitiless ways of the Angel of History – to remember Walter Benjamin’s searing metaphor – that really illuminate the always shape-shifting Big Picture, and help us to better frame complex historical processes on the move.
We are now, geopolitically, under the volcano. And one of the key questions ahead that may allow us to better find a way out is how the top BRICS nations will be reacting to the seemingly immovable Forever Wars ethos.
So let’s keep our feet on the ground. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has just gone through an intriguing Astana process loop. First he was in Turkiye – the new hegemon in Syria, at least in thesis. He met Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan – the former head of Turkish intel – and President Erdogan.
Even though Turkiye will hardly dare to become a BRICS partner – after it was officially invited at the Kazan summit last year - Ankara simply cannot afford to antagonize Russia, mostly for geoeconomic reasons.
Then Lavrov went to Iran – following up on the Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Cooperation signed on January 17 in Moscow.
Lavrov and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi discussed not only the proverbial mutually beneficial trade and economic cooperation agenda – especially on energy and transportation – but also the wider geopolitical chessboard, including ultra-sensitive nodes such as Syria, Yemen, the Persian Gulf, the Caspian, the South Caucasus and Afghanistan, as well as what could happen next for the JCPOA, the Iran nuclear deal.
Yet the absolutely key imperative remains the Forever Wars chapter in Ukraine – whose resolution (or not) will deeply affect geopolitics for the rest of the century.
Three years ago, at the start of the SMO, President Putin qualified a series of objectives. NATO responded by seeking to up the ante.
Examples. Let’s start with a security treaty imposing a demilitarized space on Russia’s western borders, and the return of NATO to its limits circa 1997. NATO responded by expanding in Scandinavia – and now the Baltic chihuahuas, supported by Finland, dream of turning the Baltic Sea into a NATO lake.
While the Lugansk National Republic has been 100% liberated, Donetsk stands at best at 75%. Kherson was 100% liberated in the summer of 2022, but then there was a retreat; it now stands at 75%. Same with Zaporizhia.
Ukraine has not been fully demilitarized yet – although the prospects are somewhat encouraging - or denazified (that will be a decade-long process, at least).
Ukraine as a non-NATO neutral nation remains a real red line to Moscow ahead of upcoming negotiations with Trump 2.0. Same with the acceptance by Kiev of Crimea and the four regions as Russian and the removal of all sanctions against Russia: Washington may remove quite a few, but the vassal EU will keep them all.
Not to mention it’s still a long and winding road – to put it mildly – for Moscow to eventually de-enclave Transnistria, which would require to establish a transport corridor through the Kharkov-Transnistria axis as well as Odessa – a Russian city - and securitizing the whole Black Sea littoral. Control of the Black Sea was the prime NATO obsession since before Maidan in 2014.
When we follow the money regarding the upcoming US-Russia negotiations on Ukraine, it’s clear that what matters for Trump 2.0 is to reestablish the position of American companies in Russia, all the way to buying Russian commodities – as suggested by Putin himself.
So geoconomics rule – again, bringing us all back to 2013 and the fateful free market agreement between the EU and Kiev.
Trump 2.0 is building the narrative that European troops – not directly NATO-linked – will be deployed in Kiev after the end of the war. That would fit into a soft power operation of convincing public opinion about NATO’s annexation of rump Ukraine.
Trump 2.0, meanwhile, is actively transferring to the collapsing EU the role of 100% globalist supporter of Kiev. Follow the money: this means the EU has to pay up. For everything – while the US gleefully exploits what remains of Ukraine’s resources.
In parallel, in this Kafkaesque universe, Brussels keeps piling up sanctions on Russia while removing sanctions on Syria on the energy and transportation fronts because Damascus, after all, is now ruled by jihadists: “our” jihadists.
Compounding the circus, clueless EU mutts such as the next BlackRock German chancellor now openly admit, regretfully, that Maidan, from the start, was in fact aimed against Brussels. The American goal – way before the toxic distribution of Nuland’s cookies – was to sever the EU from Russia and destroy it as a technological competitor. Mission accomplished.
Of course, in such a Kafkaesque domain, none of the above is enough to change the EU narrative. Brussels wants to allocate yet another 20 to 40 billion euros (which they don’t have) and an “unimaginable” amount of (American) weapons to Kiev, as stated by Hungary’s Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto.
Follow the money – and the shadow play
Back on the Ukraine front, Putin has actually suggested that Zaluzhny might replace the current cracked actor in a sweaty sweatshirt. The MI6 is undoubtedly currently preparing Zaluzhny in London exactly for such a role.
As for military budget cuts, Putin also accepts Trump’s idea of dividing them by half (China politely disagrees). Were that to happen, Russia’s budget would roughly be back to what it was before the SMO, while the Americans would have to cut off $400 billion. Elon Musk’s DOGE will be thrilled; the Deep State will fight it to death.
For all the intertwined shadow play that is taking place on all fronts, invisible to public opinion, there is an undercurrent of skeptical dissent in Moscow according to which after three years of a narrative insisting the Ukraine war was a US war on Russia (certainly by the globalist Democrat axis), plus the Ukrainian biolabs, the tsunami of sanctions, the Nord Stream bombings, Moscow is now willing to re-start economic cooperation with Washington from scratch.
Of course it’s not so simple. But there are indeed fears that a possible “peace” deal may turn out to be yet another American “follow the money” win.
Whatever happens next – and no one knows what that will be – the fact remains that it’s Putin who’s now in charge of this new chapter of the Art of the Deal, swiftly dodging veiled threats and non-stop bullying and reverting them Sun Tzu-style.
Putin cannot possibly accept European “peace keepers” in Ukraine because Russian public opinion will never accept it.
Without making a single move, just playing Sun Tzu, Putin has already made Trump humiliate the Kiev actor in front of the whole planet and de facto relegate the EU to the dustbin of History.
And yet, once again, this nagging feeling persists across well-informed circles in Moscow that a few Ukraine-related deals on the end of the war have already been clinched in the background. That explains why certain Russian and American outbursts seem to be too well synchronized.
Once again, shadow play. And follow the money. When Putin talks about possible joint US-Russian investments on aluminum production in Siberia, he’s thinking about sanctions being erased on Russia’s aluminum industry.
Same with American investments in Donbass: that will imply the regions are Russian. From all that, there will be a cascade of suppressed sanctions on the sectors of the Russian banking system involved in foreign trade. That’s hardcore geopolitics in action.
The China-Russia front – involving a deeply complex comprehensive strategic partnership - is way more complex. Much more than BRICS, Beijing’s priority is BRI, the Belt and Road Initiative, or New Silk Roads, the overarching geoeconomics framework of Chinese foreign policy: opening new markets for Chinese products, globally.
The EU was supposed to be the top final destination of the BRI network. So now there is a serious dichotomy in play.
Beijing was thrown seriously off balance by the de facto Russian demolition of the EU’s cash flow via the SMO: that reduced the actual value of the EU market for BRI.
Yet in parallel, Russia’s fast as lightning resurgence as a great military power, strategically defeating the whole collective West, has unveiled a few new tricks to Beijing ahead of its epic confrontation with Trump 2.0 – which does see China as the eminent threat to the Empire of Chaos.
In the end, it's all about Resistance. From Donbass to the Eastern Mediterranean, from BRICS Iran to BRICS Russia. China, meanwhile, is watching the – geopolitical - river flow, and learning everything there is to learn.
A brilliant view from Pepe Escobar!
We can see "the karma of Sylvestre de Sacy", the French intellectual who accompanied Napoleo in his Asian wars, and wanted to "excite Muslim fanaticism against Russian orthodoxy"! Europe's only partners now are indeed these farcical "Muslim fanatics" (Islamic State in Syria), while Muslims and Orthodox collaborate to build the multipolar world, and Trump understood that as for now, the US would loose a direct war against Russia so better make a ceasefire with BRICS and have the Europeans pay for the mess.
samedi 22 février 2025
Prisoniers Israéliens libérés
https://t.me/internationalreporters/69545
Et Yeshayahu ben Aharon :
https://www.ibecoming.co.il/eng/Blog/980/Humans-are-the-True-Extraterrestrials
dimanche 5 janvier 2025
To those worried about the climate
To those worried about the climate, and more precisely (because I am not talking about the micro-climate or the regional climate, but about the global "climate" in the sense given to it by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC) to those who think that:
1. the earth is warming, and that
2. this warming is due to the greenhouse effect, and that
3. carbon dioxide is the cause of the greenhouse effect, I ask:
Are you doing something, practically, to solve the problem that concerns you? If so, have you found a way to verify the effectiveness of your action? And if not, what is the practical consequence of your climate concern?
For example, here are some practical, easy actions taken from my personal experience, whose effectiveness is easily verifiable:
- to reduce air pollution in the city: Walk, cycle, use public transport, refuse electric vehicles - which pollute more because of their weight and tyre wear.
- to reduce soil pollution: Reduce electrical gadgets, keep your cell phone and computer longer (continue to use it even when the battery, after 6 or 7 years, no longer takes a charge), continue using old, lightweight and "offline" software, refuse electric bicycles, scooters and cars, eat less meat, eat more organic products, avoid plastic bags...
- to reduce pollution in homes and fight against the epidemic of catastrophic fires: Eliminate plastics (including plywood and particle boards or "OSB" full of glue), PVC floorings, polyurethane foam sofas and beds (yes, 95% of IKEA is to be rejected), and even acrylic paints and "vitrification" of wooden floors and even certain "linseed oils" which contain chemical hardeners, and prefer lime paint and mustard or other natural oils, in short, make your house thinking of your baby crawling on the floor and putting everything, absolutely everything, in her mouth. It is not always easy, but very simple, and doable without asking "experts".
- to fight against desertification and the poisoning of water and soil: Refuse pesticides and "pest control", plant diverse and local species, preserve wetlands, use dry toilets.
- to fight against the increase in our economic vulnerability: Make bioclimatic homes, cities and factories, where natural light, natural ventilation and passive solar design ensure a comfortable climate without depending on machines (which humanity has done for 12,000 years until 1950-80, and continues to do in many regions of the world);
- to fight against world hunger: Refuse necrofuels and burn, in vehicles or for heating, exclusively fossil fuels (gas or petrol) or otherwise, agricultural waste that you produce yourself (pruning branches, dead leaves, etc.)
- to fight against the deterioration of the (micro) climate: Refuse artificialization of soils, plant trees (local and diverse);
- to respect our children and grandchildren: Refuse nuclear energy.
Etc. etc. Only simple, feasible things, easy to understand, explain, verify, prove. Nothing controversial, by the way.
Compare with the crazy or criminal, unverifiable "solutions" of the apostles of the "climate"...
What is "scientific"?
An action whose effects can be verified immediately and by our own means?
or complicated theories that do not lead to any concrete action with verifiable effects?
Unfortunately, late Bruno Latour, who argued that science is the product of scientific institutions and not the other way around, has successfully given theoretical foundations to contemporary political philosophy, that of Covid, Nuclear Power, Liberal Nazism, Democratic Genocide, Jihadism in Business Suit, and War abroad as a guarantee of "Peace" at home.
Aux angoissés du climat
Aux angoissés du climat, et plus précisément (car je ne parle pas du micro-climat ou du climat régional, mais du "climat" global au sens que lui donne le Groupe d'Experts Intergouvernemental sur l'Evolution du Climat, GIEC) à ceux qui pensent que 1. la terre se réchauffe, que 2. ce réchauffement est dû à l'effet de serre, et que 3. le gaz carbonique est la cause de l'effet de serre, je demande :
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)