- gadcon2.png (215.47 KiB) Viewed 2436 times
More and more fascinating the gadgetdebois ... It has never exceeded the pee-poo level.
I remind you that the second subject he spoiled today is:
A new article still in a peer-reviewed journal highlights a systemic bias in the selection of UN data to support the climate change discourse.
Explanations here:
http://www.raa-journal.org/raa/index.ph ... /4920/6080
and there:
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/c ... 50089.html
"The sun, and not human carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, could be the main cause of warming temperatures in recent decades, according to a new study, the results of which strongly contradict the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. United Nations (UN) climate change (IPCC).
The peer-reviewed paper, produced by a team of nearly two dozen scientists around the world, concludes that previous studies have not sufficiently considered the role of solar energy to explain the rise in temperatures.
The new study was published just as the United Nations released their sixth "assessment report", known as AR6, which, once again, championed the idea that CO2 emissions produced by the man were responsible for global warming. According to the report, the responsibility of man is "unequivocal".
But the new study casts serious doubt on this hypothesis.
Describing the IPCC's blame for CO2 as "premature", climatologists and solar physicists say in the new paper that the UN IPCC's findings blaming human emissions are based on "narrow data and incomplete concerning the total irradiance of the sun ".
Indeed, the global climate body appears to exercise a deliberate and systemic bias in the opinions, studies and data included in its influential reports, several authors told The Epoch Times in a series of telephone interviews and video.
"Depending on the data and published studies you use, you can show that all of the warming is caused by the sun, but the IPCC uses a different set of data to come to the opposite conclusion.lead study author Ronan Connolly, Ph.D., told The Epoch Times in a video interview.
"In its insistence on forcing a so-called scientific consensus, the IPCC seems to have decided to only consider the datasets and studies that support the narrative it has chosen," he added.
The implications, from a political point of view, are enormous, especially in this field where trillions of dollars are at stake and where a spectacular reorganization of the world economy is proposed.
In short, question demonstration of the skills of the sweet in science as well as in meteorology, I think we can wait. 
