The fable of anthropogenic warming and the fight against CO2

[Janic]

What evidence? Ask when you don't understand

you have a very short and selective memory. I am therefore not talking about this subject which does not fall within my "competence"
But to satisfy you, I am going to refer you to the questions (in the subjects concerned) that you avoid because you cannot answer them, even with your "scientific" studies.

In general when this is not obvious, I prefer to quote the authentic scientific study or a press article referring to it.

except that your scientific studies are generally wrong or out of date for a long time and are only authentic for those who still want to believe it; which is their right as for all of us.
To put in your mouth this beautiful quote that you will recognize with just a very small adaptation which does not betray the general meaning:

It is rather the bleating of (.............), who believes in omnipotent science, in addition by making the gross mistake of believing that science would be limited to official science . Incredible but true! Thank you, a thousand times thank you, again, again!

[Exnihiloest]

"A Commonwealth panel of climate change experts found there was 90% certainty that the planet will warm at least 1 to 2 degrees or more, and that sea levels will rise 1 to 4 meters by 2030. Global warming and sea level rise will continue for decades, even centuries.
There was a prospect of widespread, possibly catastrophic, flooding in large areas of Egypt, India, China, the United States, Britain and India. and Holland, and atolls in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. "
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/arti ... 8/12982929 (1989)

All false. It is in the light of the abysmal propaganda of the past that we measure the abysmal propaganda of today.

[Exnihiloest]

The fable of anthropogenic warming includes an urban legend regularly rehearsed: there would be a scientific consensus.
It's wrong !
https://www.wikiberal.org/wiki/Liste_de ... climatique

And 31.000 scientists, including Nobels, had signed the petition saying:
«There is no convincing scientific evidence to indicate that emissions of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases are causing, or will cause, in the foreseeable future, catastrophic warming of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of its climate.
In addition, substantial scientific evidence shows that increasing the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has many positive effects on the environment of Earth's flora and fauna. »
https://www.wikiberal.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

[ENERC]

Yet Joseph Fourier in 1824 ..., or following the work of Planck in 1900 ...

A little reading here: http://energie-developpement.blogspot.c ... oleil.html
There are other articles on this blog on Saussure, Tyndall, Arrhenius, Milankovitch and Callendar.
Interesting to see how scientists approached the question at the end of the 19th / beginning of the 20th century.

[sen-no-sen]

The fable of anthropogenic warming includes an urban legend regularly rehearsed: there would be a scientific consensus.
It's wrong !

Most striking is the gap between climate experts (97,4%) and the general public (58%). The document concludes:
"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of climatic processes long-term. The challenge seems to find a way to effectively communicate this fact to decision-makers and to a public that continues to perceive, mistakenly, the existence of a debate among scientists. "
(...) This broad consensus among climate experts has also been confirmed by an independent study identifying all climatologists who have signed public statements supporting or rejecting the consensus. This study found that between 97% and 98% climate experts supported consensus (Anderegg 2010). Furthermore, when we use the number of publications of each researcher as a measure of their expertise in climate science, we find that the average number of publications by skeptical scientists is about half the number of those produced by convinced scientists. There therefore seems to be a considerable gap in expertise between the two groups.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/translation.php?a=17&l=12

Hammering that the RCA would be a fable is a peremptory assertion, we can at best doubt but not assert as you do ...

[izentrop]

The original version is much more detailed

In the scientific field of climate studies - which draws on many different disciplines - the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing over the causes of climate change - and that's almost all.

The authors of seven climate consensus studies - including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton and John Cook - have co-authored an article that should address this issue once and for all . The two main conclusions of the document are as follows:

1) Depending on how you measure the consensus of the experts, 90% to 100% of people recognize that humans are responsible for climate change. Most of our studies find a 97% consensus among published climatologists.

2) The greater the climate expertise among those interviewed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming. https://www.skepticalscience.com/global ... sensus.htm

See also the latest Club of Rome forecasts https://blogs.mediapart.fr/jean-paul-al ... ce-en-2030

[Exnihiloest]

...
https://www.skepticalscience.com/translation.php?a=17&l=12
...

I read there:
"Specifically, about 95% of researchers studying climate and publishing articles on the subject share this position."

Hilarious, it is as if you were interrogating practitioners in a mosque to find out what the percentage of Muslims in France is. Today only scientists without a career ambition and morally strong enough can dare to challenge the good word and take it up in the face by the sticks coming from institutions led by politicians and their high priests in command or collusion.

The other bias is to amalgamate everything and anything and make it a binary question.
But what "position" are we talking about?

Which is to say warming / not warming?
predictable warming / not predictable warming?
long-term warming / not long-term warming?
essentially anthropogenic warming / not essentially anthropogenic warming?
warming mainly by CO2 / not warming mainly by CO2?
warming with such values ​​and such margins of uncertainty / not warming with such values ​​and such margins of uncertainty?
...

The climato-realism, as its name suggests, is in reality, and the reality is subtle, a lot of various causes to take into account, a lot of unknowns, a lot of uncertainties, it's not simplistic like the certified climatologists say it with pretension; if so, their predictions would be correct!

[sen-no-sen]

The climato-realism, as its name suggests, is in reality, and the reality is subtle, a lot of various causes to take into account, a lot of unknowns, a lot of uncertainties, it's not simplistic like the certified climatologists say it with pretension; if so, their predictions would be correct!

And what do the climate-realistic?

[Janic]

Hilarious, it is as if you were interrogating practitioners in a mosque to find out what the percentage of Muslims in France is. Today only scientists without a career ambition and morally strong enough can dare to challenge the good word and take it up in the face by the sticks coming from institutions led by politicians and their high priests in command or collusion.

and one more to add to my collection: the mirror effect!

[Ahmed]

Janic, your ingratitude grieves me: here is how you respond to someone who teaches you that scientists are divided into two groups that are unequal in number and whose opinion reflects their moral character or not; is this not a scoop of the highest interest? In addition, it turns out that the ultra-minorities defend an opinion neutral, amazing, no *?

* Conclusive formula of Pierre Desproges in "the Minute necessary from Mr. Clyclopède"