Warming: a little cool, the wind turns

[izentrop]

No better than Courtillot.

[Exnihiloest]

No better than Courtillot.

and not a fool either.
There is still a flop of scientists and academics seriously doubting about warming as it is presented to us. Taken in the same scientific panel, we rarely find any that dispute the relativity of Einstein, electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, or Darwinian evolution.
Real theories, solid, refutable, capable of predictions always verified, exist. Climatology is not part of it. Doubt is de rigueur.

[izentrop]

There is still a flop of scientists and academics seriously doubting about global warming

This is not the case of this gentleman, not even a climatologist.
Always the same arguments of authority as the water vapor or the medieval optimum that is not even confirmed scientifically https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_c ... ntroverses.
The rest is the same.

I am afraid that these protesting scientists are part of the category 3eme age sen-no-sen so well defined.

[eclectron]

This is not the case of this gentleman, not even a climatologist.

just like you and me, so we shut up, right?

Always the same authority arguments like water vapor

you probably wanted to write CO2 rather than water vapor?
In this case it is the IPCC that has authority, not the protesters who are routinely shelved by the IPCC.
It has long been no longer science but dogma and religion, this anthropic warming.
One of the biggest intellectual swindles of the century!

[izentrop]

In this case it is the IPCC that has authority, not the protesters who are routinely shelved by the IPCC.

Your feeling, not that of 97% of scientists in favor of consensus.

I "spoke" about water vapor, same argument as Courtillot http://ecologie76.over-blog.com/2015/02 ... tique.html

[eclectron]

In this case it is the IPCC that has authority, not the protesters who are routinely shelved by the IPCC.

Your feeling, not that of 97% of scientists in favor of consensus.

I "spoke" about water vapor, same argument as Courtillot http://ecologie76.over-blog.com/2015/02 ... tique.html

I know it's water vapor that you talked about but the argument ofauthority is rather in favor of the CO2, exerted by the IPCC, it was a joke ...

In fact, you find yourself in the same intellectual position as when the consensus declared that the Earth was flat.
This kind of exchange can last for centuries before the facts, the observations of the climate to come, decide.
And yet as the earth is warming up, it is undoubtedly over a long period since the end of the last ice age, who to say about the current small variations, "it is anthropogenic CO2", who to say "it is natural whose exact cause is unknown ".
Only if the Earth gets colder in the future will the CO2 be buried as a cause of the said warming.

This CO2 story has at least one interest: to make men aware that their individual actions have an impact on the global world and that the Earth, our biotope, has limits and that one must take care of one's home.
The Earth is neither a trash can nor a free vending machine where there is only to use!
This story of CO2 is an opportunity to learn the limits, damage that is on a false pretext, suddenly it discredits any notion of limit in the eyes of some.
To insist is counterproductive, in my opinion.

One might ask why the IPCC insists?
Because they are convinced * to be right ... and here we go again!
* and if they said "oops, we were wrong", they would look like hell, but that would be honest.
Personally, wanting to dig up the case, I tried to interact with climate dignitaries: no answer.
sub-dignitaries: more accessible, there were responses with "we don't know" then "drowning" fish so as not to lose face and especially not to question the consensus of which they are part and of which their job (survival) depends.
I perfectly felt what Etienne Vernaz described on this subject.
I will not name anyone, nor my questions to preserve my anonymity, I do not want to close doors ...

[lilian07]

Astonishing the analysis of Etienne Vernaz.
I remember that we must be aware of our influence on the environment but we must always be humble in the face of the global consequences of our activities that are in no way measurable.
I also think that we must reduce our footprint because, without measuring, it is better to respect a tendency that consists of wisdom.

[izentrop]

the argument of authority is rather in favor of the CO2, exercised by the IPCC

I understand that we are wary of decisions coming from an organization that represents only the richest 7 countries in the world, but the important thing is that

performs an evaluation and synthesis of research work carried out in laboratories around the world. By and large, the IPCC conducts a very special kind of press review: it examines and synthesizes what has been published in the scientific literature on the issue of human influence on climate (and by way of consequently, on the functioning of the climate, with or without men), This is an important point, as any researcher working in one of the fields concerned - even someone who would try to question the influence of man on the climate - will see its work taken into account in the framework of the expert assessment procedures organized by the IPCC since this has given rise to publication in a scientific journal (on the other hand the IPCC ignores, and it is normal, of this which is published in the "ordinary" press, on Internet sites, etc. only peer-reviewed scientific journals or work in progress in research laboratories are taken into account). https://jancovici.com/changement-climat ... e-le-giec/

The important thing for me is the consensus, not the famous decisions on carbon taxes and company.

This CO2 story has at least one interest: to make men aware that their individual actions have an impact on the global world and that the Earth, our biotope, has limits and that one must take care of one's home.
The Earth is neither a trash can nor a free vending machine where there is only to use!

The key is to be aware of it, but to say that the reduction of CO2 is the first emergency gives the direction to take.

Reducing the carbon content of the energy that we need, without depriving ourselves is quite possible, by using renewable energies and "clean" nuclear power.
Individually, you can better sort your waste by putting everything that is paper towel, paper tissues with compost, do not burn waste ...
But there are many other practices to change, the "vending machine" comes to the end of its life.

[eclectron]

The important thing for me is the consensus, not the famous decisions on carbon taxes and company.

Any consensus, is it necessarily right? (subject to 2018 philosopher's bac)
The consensus of people and works sorted according to the said consensus, is it necessarily right?

... The essential thing is to become aware of it, but to say that the reduction of CO2 is the first urgency gives the direction to take.

The key is to build a sustainable world, on this point we agree.
Have we reached consensus?

[sen-no-sen]

Etienne Vernaz, former research director at CEA, professor at INSTN, a recognized specialist in nuclear waste, gives us an update. It's very informative and accessible to everyone:

Etienne Vernaz Here we propose an analysis combining a certain amount of information, some of which are most dubious and completely wrong, which invalidates are exposed.
At the beginning of the video to 3'30 " he explains to us that Greenland was I quote:", without snow, just a green land full of trees" in the Middle Ages ... which is totally false, since the gigantic ice sheet that covers most of the latter began its formation during the Pleistocene and the oldest ice dates about 250 000 years!
For a scientist this kind of error is inexcusable, how to listen to the fact that a thick glacier of 2km was formed over such a short period?
Moreover the Vikings have not colonized all of Greenland, but its coasts, shades!