No scientific consensus on climate change

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

This is what makes imbeciles say, all in nuance, when 500 scientists dispute the climate emergency:
Again this imposture of the 500 assholes signing a shit ".

And yes, Pépère has a short memory:

The ambassadors of the European Climate Declaration:

Guus Berkhout, professor (Netherlands) << Worked for Shell between 1976 and 2017
Richard Lindzen, professor (United States) << An obsolete meteorologist. It has been proven that his work is only a "collection of more or less voluntary errors".
Reynald Du Berger, professor (Canada (francophone) << Retired seismologist geologist, got his scholarship at Laval University because of his comments on Islam. This earthquake expert says the earth's temperature has not increased for 15 years.
Ingemar Nordin, professor (Sweden) << Areas of expertise: Philosophy of science and technology. Political philosophy. Philosophy of Medicine
Terry Dunleavy (New Zealand) << A former journalist and printer, Dunleavy has been involved in the New Zealand wine industry for many years. Member of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, sponsored by Koch Industries and Exxon among others.
Jim O'Brien (Republic of Ireland) “Jim is a CSR / energy consultant, actively promoting industry sustainability through strategic support, advisory and leadership roles. Now 10 years “retired” after a 39-year career in the building materials industry, he is an active consultant globally on CSR and energy challenges and opportunities.
Viv Forbes (Australia) << Graduated in Geology of Applied Sciences and Fellow of the Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 40 years of experience in the coal industry
Alberto Prestininzi, professor (Italy) << Geologist, no connection with the weather
Jeffrey Foss, professor (English speaking Canada) << Philosopher of science ...
Benoît Rittaud, senior lecturer (France) << Neo-liberal mathematician, works with Valeurs Actuelles
Morten Jødal (Norway) << Biologist
Fritz Varenholt, professor (Germany) << Chemist, served on the board of directors of Shell Germany ...
Rob Lemeire (Belgium) << "Civil engineer" no publication, nothing.
Viconte Monkton of Brenchley (UK) << Not only is he not a scientist, he also falsely claimed to be a Nobel Laureate and self-proclaimed a member of the House of Lords, a claim which earned him a formal notice from the parliamentary institution.

catastrophes-humaines-naturelles/la-fable-du-rechauffement-et-de-la-lutte-contre-le-co2-t15854-430.html?hilit=500#p374848
For memory:
https://www.huffingtonpost.fr/entry/fac ... d0cef4bb69
And it dates (my post) from 21/12/19
Old puppet which gives us the reheated which was already cold and dead !!!!

[Flytox]

... because in "each one outbidding in the apocalyptic announcements and the exaggerations on the least ecological concern", there is no question of making them, the forecasts.
Doing them is the role of the great media gurus of the green movement, to impress their legions of conditioned minions who then begin to defend them.

This is what makes imbeciles say, all in nuance, when 500 scientists dispute the climate emergency:
"Again this imposture of the 500 assholes signing a shit".

... because in "each one outbidding in the apocalyptic announcements and the exaggerations on the least concern economic", there is no question of making them, the forecasts.
Doing them is the role of the big media gurus of the movement media capital, to impress their legions of conditioned underlings who then set out to defend them.
...

[Exnihiloest]

 
The very value of consensus in science is open to debate. Moreover, the scope and even the existence of a climate consensus is not as obvious as it is regularly heard trumpeting.
The points on the question:
https://www.europeanscientist.com/en/fe ... amination/

• An undeniable consensus?
• An error of logic.
• Confirmation bias.
• Selection bias and sample size issues.
• Influence of the experimenter and social acceptance of the results.
• A 100% magical consensus.

"Global warming consensus must be challenged by scientists.

By examining several papers which suggest an extremely high level of consensus on anthropogenic global warming, we have shown that this assessment is built on a significant but however limited fraction of the available scientific publications or a limited number of explicit opinions. We have shown how some authors asserting an extremely high level of consensus on global warming have used artificial circular reasoning to convince and we have pointed out that several method biases (notably confirmation biases, selection biases, publication biases , the experimental effect, social acceptability) did not seem to be under control. Because of these potential biases, 90-100% could be overly optimistic estimates of the current consensus on global warming..

Our conclusion about the potential overestimation of the global warming consensus does not mean that global warming due to human activities does not exist. But asserting 100% consensus is magic, unless it's backed up by solid evidence that we haven't found to date in the articles claiming it. It must be questioned. To question is not to deny. It is a necessary tool to maintain good hygiene in the practice of science.

The entire climate science community should probably find a way to rigorously analyze its own work, with a verified unbiased methodology., in order to scientifically build the level of agreement on global warming and should avoid ill-founded magical claims that may attract public attention but present the risk of discrediting science.

The probity requirements apply to all scientists, including climatologists."

I have been saying this for a long time, there is no consensus.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Here, Blédina is now referring to Jean Paul Oury, a real libertarian foul and stinking junk ... I'm hallucinating, it's no longer the trash, there, it's downright the mass graves that he digs up.

[Exnihiloest]

Here, Blédina is now referring to Jean Paul Oury, a real libertarian foul and stinking junk ...

Opinion of a fool, real rubbish of the forum seeking to rot all the sons with his insults and slanders.


The text is not by Jean-Paul Oury, but by Sébastien Point, and refers to around twenty scientific publications, most of them being a collective work, as everyone can review it here.
There is no consensus.

https://www.europeanscientist.com/en/fe ... amination/

• An undeniable consensus?
• An error of logic.
• Confirmation bias.
• Selection bias and sample size issues.
• Influence of the experimenter and social acceptance of the results.
• A 100% magical consensus.

"Global warming consensus must be challenged by scientists.

By examining several papers which suggest an extremely high level of consensus on anthropogenic global warming, we have shown that this assessment is built on a significant but however limited fraction of the available scientific publications or a limited number of explicit opinions. We have shown how some authors asserting an extremely high level of consensus on global warming have used artificial circular reasoning to convince and we have pointed out that several method biases (notably confirmation biases, selection biases, publication biases , the experimental effect, social acceptability) did not seem to be under control. Because of these potential biases, 90-100% could be overly optimistic estimates of the current consensus on global warming..

Our conclusion about the potential overestimation of the global warming consensus does not mean that global warming due to human activities does not exist. But asserting 100% consensus is magic, unless it's backed up by solid evidence that we haven't found to date in the articles claiming it. It must be questioned. To question is not to deny. It is a necessary tool to maintain good hygiene in the practice of science.

The entire climate science community should probably find a way to rigorously analyze its own work, with a verified unbiased methodology., in order to scientifically build the level of agreement on global warming and should avoid ill-founded magical claims that may attract public attention but present the risk of discrediting science.

The probity requirements apply to all scientists, including climatologists."

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Oury is the blog, Point is the forger, the nullard, the zététicien crook. Shade. Two more garbage to put in the Blédina stable.
You can repost your dung once more ... come on! SCHNELL!!!!

[Exnihiloest]

.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Oury is the blog, Point is the forger, the nullard, the zététicien crook. Shade. Two more garbage to put in the Blédina stable.
You can repost your dung once more ... come on! SCHNELL !!!!


Moreover, the climate is not Point's specialty, which is in his own right, the laughing stock of true uncorrupted scientists.

[Exnihiloest]

.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Oury is the blog, Point is the forger, the nullard, the zététicien crook. Shade. Two more garbage to put in the Blédina stable.
You can repost your dung once more ... come on! SCHNELL !!!!


Moreover, the climate is not Point's specialty, which is in his own right, the laughing stock of true uncorrupted scientists.