Scientific negationism: dogmatism?

[Exnihiloest]

...
climate models are something other than life after death or the existence of god, used the reversal of the burden of proof as you do here is not valid ...

They would be something else if they were rebuttable. But they are not: far too many arbitrary and questionable choices are taken into account in the configuration. So it's kif-kif.

[Exnihiloest]

...
Instead of playing who has the biggest ...

he tells us by showing off ...

[sen-no-sen]

...
climate models are something other than life after death or the existence of god, used the reversal of the burden of proof as you do here is not valid ...

They would be something else if they were rebuttable. But they are not: far too many arbitrary and questionable choices are taken into account in the configuration. So it's kif-kif.

Which?

Sorry, but there are two points on which there is scientific unanimity:
1) Human activities release very large quantities of greenhouse gases.
2) GHGs by their accumulations increase the greenhouse effect and therefore the temperature of the globe.

The real contradictions are not based on its points, but on the positive or negative feedback that results (parasol effect for example).

[Janic]

A report dating from 2015 on AIDS in America and whose usual media did not relay information ... in France at least!
Sergeant David Gutierrez, who was first sentenced to 8 years in prison for having had several sexual relations while he was "HIV positive", was released by the most important military court. Indeed, according to the defense, the risks of contamination would be between 1 / 10.000 or 100.000 relationships and according to the accusation 1/500. The court held that even the latter figure did not justify the possibility of transmission of the disease, thus rejecting the classification of aggravated aggression for which use must have been made of a means of causing irreparable damage to the victims.
In fact, 1/500 means that there should have been 1 relationship with 500 successive partners or 100 relationships with 5 successive partners and other variants. Hence the tiny probabilities of contamination by sexual relations when the general state of health is not called into question.

Also taken from the Abbot p6 leaflet
« To date, there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV 1 or HIV 2 in the blood. human "

[izentrop]

Hello,
Where is the Holocaust denial in this matter? http://translate.google.com/translate?h ... in2015%2F2

[izentrop]

Here is the truth:

UN experts are sounding the alarm. They say 200 deaths are caused by pesticides each year. Hilal Elver and Baskut Tuncak explain that “there is a link between regular exposure to pesticides and Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, endocrine disorders, developmental disorders and infertility. http://www.bioalaune.com/fr/actualite-b ... pesticides

Repeated on many sites that want to do battle.

However, this figure, often quoted in the media and environmental NGOs, is not only more than thirty years old, but it is also false. http://alerte-environnement.fr/2017/03/ ... esticides/

See as well

Hilal Elver also seems to share her husband's beliefs about the conspiracy theory of the September 11 attacks. She is thus explicitly thanked by the theologian David Ray Griffin at the beginning of his book, The New Pearl Harbor (2004), which is a bible of the Truthers, the 11/XNUMX conspiracy theorists - the work has also been prefaced by Richard Falk himself. http://www.conspiracywatch.info/Hilal-E ... a1219.html

[Janic]

http://www.eau-et-rivieres.asso.fr/medi ... v_2001.pdf regarding pesticides.

Here is the truth:

who has any truth?

UN experts are sounding the alarm. They say 200 deaths are caused by pesticides each year. Hilal Elver and Baskut Tuncak explain that “there is a link between regular exposure to pesticides and Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, endocrine disorders, developmental disorders and infertility. http://www.bioalaune.com/fr/actualite-b ... pesticides

As long as it is better to use credible sites because official.
The WHO places this mortality between 20.000 and 200.000 for lack of credible figures which are lacking in the various studies on the subject. Indeed, these are only estimates but which concern almost exclusively professionals who are widely exposed. For the rest of the population it is the black hole and nobody, it seems, dares to embark on a credible estimate since the cocktail effect is difficult to estimate. Reality risks, in the future, being underestimated in these figures as was the case with DDT.

However, this figure, often quoted in the media and environmental NGOs, is not only more than thirty years old, but it is also false. http://alerte-environnement.fr/2017/03/ ... esticides /

Same goes for "credible" sites

For Gutierrez: what does your cited site say
"In the initial leniency application made on behalf of David Gutierrez shortly after his trial, the experts felt that David Gutierrez was, in all likelihood, HIV-free and the diagnosis was wrong. "
It's typical of a pretty pirouette!
It's no luck and bad luck combined. According to "all likelihood", this soldier was sentenced without having been checked if he was HIV positive? There are some who really do their job!
Who are we laughing at ?

[izentrop]

According to "all likelihood", this soldier was sentenced without having been checked if he was HIV positive? There are some who really do their job!

We agree ! error of the American justice, nothing to do with this subject.

The WHO places this mortality between 20.000 and 200.000 for lack of credible figures which are lacking in the various studies on the subject. Indeed, these are only estimates but which concern almost exclusively professionals who are widely exposed. For the rest of the population it is the black hole and nobody, it seems, dares to embark on a credible estimate since the cocktail effect is difficult to estimate.

WHO announces 186000 suicides in 2002 No other figures because there are no deaths declared except rare accident.
Where do you get your WHO figures from?

[Janic]

janic wrote: According to "all likelihood" this soldier would have been condemned without having been checked if he was HIV positive? There are some who really do their job!

We agree ! American justice error,

No error, just a new judgment which only confirms the low risks of contamination largely exaggerated by big pharma proVIH.

nothing to do with this topic.

On the contrary ! Negationism is generally attributed to those who contest official speeches, and here negation comes from an "incontestable" authority against official speech.

janic wrote: The WHO puts this mortality between 20.000 and 200.000 for lack of credible figures that are missing in the various studies on the subject. Indeed, these are only estimates but which concern almost exclusively professionals who are widely exposed. For the rest of the population it is the black hole and nobody, it seems, dares to embark on a credible estimate since the cocktail effect is difficult to estimate.

WHO announces 186000 suicides in 2002 No other figures because there are no deaths reported except rare accident.

Suicides are not directly related to the application of pesticides.
It is much more complicated than that because apart from the direct deaths among farmers, all the others, in the rest of the world population are difficult to estimate and therefore a "reasonable" range is not wrong.

Where do you get your WHO figures from?

http://www.planetoscope.com/agriculture ... monde.html
Extremely dangerous pesticides
Extremely hazardous pesticides can have acute and / or chronic toxic effects, especially in children.

Widespread use of pesticides causes health problems and deaths in many parts of the world, often due to workplace exposure or accidental or intentional poisoning.The data available are too limited to estimate the global health impact of pesticides

[izentrop]

No error, just a new judgment which only confirms the low risks of contamination largely exaggerated by big pharma proVIH.

You are badly informed because justice does not have the role of making this type of evaluation.
And it depends on different parameters http://vih.org/20160601/risque-transmis ... 015/138187

The results of these studies are from 2015, therefore normal that the review of the trial took place after this date.