Evaluation wrote:The brain exerts uncertainty and prefers to rally to a massively adopted position, that reassures him, even if this position is discovered erroneous thereafter, rather than live in the present, alone and with doubt, such was the intention .
The (enlightened) brain especially loathes unfounded certainties and prefers to rally to well-founded arguments, even if they are disturbing! The current consensus is disturbing and anxious, but where would be the "advantage" to deny it? Shirk our responsibilities and not worry about their consequences?
Doubt is healthy, and is an integral part of the scientific attitude; few current supporters of the climate-anthropic consensus (they are scientists) have never had a doubt, but almost all have recognized the anthropic contribution in this problematic.
I repeat myself, but doubt is healthy.
However, that the same person (Dupon-dt; Cambre, Duran) denies consensus by invoking doubt and, in order and disorder, but concurrently:
- the denial of the current warming of the global climate;
- the acceptance of this same global warming of the climate, but denying its anthropic causes;
- manipulated curves (without peer control without conflicts of interest) and therefore doubtful;
- aspects of misunderstood detail (the extension of Antarctic ice, local meteorological arguments having little relation to the global climatological arguments ...) that support their manipulations but do not postpone, after subsequent verifications, not in question the global trend;
- the lack of probity of 97% of the studies that support the consensus (yet controlled by peers without conflict of interest).
So, one wonders what are the motives of Dupon-dt; Cambre, Duran, and others?
How is it that their insults to the entire scientific community are so long at the top of Google or other search results (it costs money, I can not afford it)?
From there, since money is so important, who are their counter-current efforts being financed (and the good place of their media misdeeds)?
Is the consensus on anthropogenic global warming a conspiracy, embraced by 97% of (peer-reviewed) studies from scientific authors with something to say about climate? Or is this alleged plot the position of climate skeptics (few of whom have any "letters" in the field of climate)?
It is nevertheless unlikely that the position of the consensus (majority, but not unanimous) promoted by 97% of the studies is the work of a conspiracy of the scientists who would be at the origin of it, knowing that the plots are historically and generally promoted by minorities opposed to this or that consensus; conspiracy: "theoretical account which claims to be coherent and seeks to demonstrate the existence of a conspiracy understood as the fact that" a small group of powerful people is coordinating in secret to plan and undertake an illegal and harmful action affecting the course of events""
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%A9orie_du_complot.
When it comes to climate consensus, we are a long way from a "small group of powerful people" who can coordinate to plot and divulge false information.
On the other hand, the activity of the climatosceptics is much closer to this definition ...
It is human to act and think with the knowledge of the moment, therefore to engage with the knowledge of the moment.
The future will confirm the climate research of today.
I am not a climatologist to judge the absolute relevance of climate research.
In spite of everything, climatology remains a young science, unlike Newtonian mechanics, which is no longer criticized today.
I prefer to keep a little perspective on what is not within my competence and what is not yet a consensus 100%.
It's a bit contradictory ... Current medicine is also very "young", do you subscribe to it or do you have legitimate doubts in your eyes? Do you refuse the vaccines, the antibiotics? In what way does your doubting mind wait for proof, which would be the subject of "100% consensus"? Does this 100% consensus exist in any scientific field? No. So, according to your "human" position you would not "believe" in anything that is supported by science?
Oulà, you would then be a sacred specimen of humanity, be careful on your way to the woods that could burn you alive!
Come back to earth, continental drift (or plate tectonics), a theory put forward in 1912 by Alfred Wegener alone, waited until the 1960s before being admitted and obtaining a scientific "consensus", Newton's theories or Einstein also waited decades before being accepted by a majority of scientists (not 100%). 100% consensus simply does not exist and never has existed, in any discipline!
Do you think that it will be the same for climatosceptic theses, broken down by irrefutable data (and not theories or interpretations). Will they triumph in the next 50 years? Will their theses be validated one day or the other? This is extremely unlikely, since it is counter-current theses of the data, not theories supported by physically measurable facts (the data).
However, as a human being, I am inclined to follow the current consensus and adopt the prudential rules that flow from it.
So you agree with the action against anthropogenic warming? Excuse me for asking the question again, but your position seems to me full of contradictions ...
As this subject is complex, it is not only the climate at stake in this subject.
What else? Personal beliefs that do not want to take into consideration a massive consensus? The philosophy?
Each one being different, everyone reacts differently to the same situation.
Here we finally agree absolutely ...
The keyword of our survival, that's life because we do not eat pebbles, then kill them with respect and discernment!