humanitarian disasters, natural, climatic and industrial ⇒ The fable of anthropogenic warming and the fight against CO2
It is shocking that a so-called scientist can be so rigorous.
In addition this video of FG is null: everything is confused, mixed and contradictory. We do not understand anything. The only thing that stands out is that he hates solar and wind.
His book "The Innocence of Carbon", was analyzed in this article "The untruths of the latest climate pamphlet" here: https://www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article ... 50684.html
ENERC wrote:Very good analysis of this video by François Marie Bréon who shows how François Gervais manipulates the data.
François Gervais does not manipulate the data more than the IPCC, on the contrary it treats them as they should be, and of course it does not please aficionados.
CAN is a boon for nuclear without CO2, and François Marie Bréon takes his oats to the raking racks of the Atomic Energy Commission. Moreover, he is an "active environmental activist". He promotes his ideology, and will not shoot himself in the foot!
It is as if Torquemada were quoted as proof of the falsity of the pleadings of his victims in the inquisition process.
just as you promote your own ideology, whether you are right or wrong!He promotes his ideology, and will not shoot himself in the foot!
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" Exnihiloest
"The enemy is an idiot, he thinks that we are the enemy while he is he".
Janic wrote:just as you promote your own ideology, whether you are right or wrong!He promotes his ideology, and will not shoot himself in the foot!
False, a little is beyond you. I do not defend any ideology, I did not propose anything. I only fight one.
Ahmed wrote:Everything comes to light in the light of this quote from Pierre Desproges:"The enemy is an idiot, he thinks that we are the enemy while he is he".
You do not know how right you are. It is for this reason that the facts and the solidity of the theories are to be taken into account.
For example climate-gobers relay that climatic events are going to be more and more violent. But the year 2018 will end in the USA without any tornado intensity EF4 or EF5 has been recorded, and this is the first time this has occurred since the creation of this statistic in 1950. The decline observed in recent decades seems to be in favor of climatologists who believe that global warming reduces the intensity of extreme events.
You do not know how right you are.
But if! Is it the proximity of the end of the year that pushes you to extra-lucidity?
Is not the term "climate gobbler" a bit controversial?
Since we are on objectivity and neutrality (!), I note that you usually make skunk leaps when someone ventures, for methodological caution, to use the formula "it seems", but I note that you do not hesitate to use what you condemn in others ...?
When the formula "it seems" will be used by the IPCC, we can use its method. But the IPCC formulates its conclusions, for him it does not "seem" to him, he is sure, even when three or four years after we discover that his forecasts were false .
To refer to the facts does not imply neutrality, it only indicates the method, and the objectivity of which you spoke. One can of course not be neutral, it is related to the conclusions that one drew from the analyzes, but still it is necessary that the arguments remain objective.
If you read this thread better, you will see that the term "skiff jump" applies much better to those who claim to the least argument that provides: "it is false since it comes from" Machin "which is a" climate skeptic ".
Obviously temperatures in the shade
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 1 guest