Janic wrote: ...
as usual you give the baton to beat you, because if there is a speaker who never gives figures, data processing, but is content with theories, interpretations to the nut, we can only do not be convinced by your speeches.
I give figures when I present facts and they require it (for example in this thread, 30 / 12 / 18, 18: 59, 22 / 12 / 18, 20: 46, 16 / 12 / messages) 18, 17: 19, 15 / 12 / 18, 18: 08 and 17: 59 ... so you are lying), otherwise I have no reason to give any.
I did not speak specifically about this subject where you are lavish in quotations that are not proofs, but estimates. But it does not matter, personally, whether it is natural or man-made, matters less than asking the question: what is it going to do for decades to come and the estimates are not rosy and can to be even too optimistic.
And I was obviously thinking of vaccines or homeopathy (which I know better than the climate and many other subjects) for example where this demand has still not been satisfied, but could you only, even and especially with WHO?NB: I am still waiting for EVIDENCE ON OTHER SUBJECTS.
The proofs are given to you, but you deny the evidences and the references, like the OMS which you affirm "not credible". The obscurantists do not accept any reference from international bodies like WHO (except perhaps the IPCC, they have recognized the same cat food they serve us).
What you call proofs is often only truncated reality to make certain statements credible. But if you followed carefully what I have already expressed, the WHO HAS DECLINED CREDIBLE when the latter has shifted from its role and objective of scientific neutrality (since it is only subsidized by the nations) to, for the most part, subsidies, financial support from certain large "health" industries which guide, select and suppress information from this sector. organization to support their desires to maintain under their control and influence, the majority of populations fearful and paralyzed by the fear of the bad microbes. So it goes well, despite everything, scientific information but that if they do not overshadow these lobbies.
Now, thankfully, WHO is not the only body to disseminate scientific information, and it is through the comparison of these various, often contradictory, information that science can advance without being self censored not to displease the sponsors.
I conclude with this reflection of Ahmed that confirms what I already have and also made:
Since we are on objectivity and neutrality (!), I note that you usually make leaps of polecat when someone ventures, for methodological caution, to use the formula "it seems", gold I note that you do not hesitate to use what you condemn in others...?