No scientific consensus on climate change

[Exnihiloest]

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.

Junk forum seeks not only to rot the thread with his insults and slander, but to have it shut down by a complacent moderator, preferring censorship to moderation, as he has already done for the thread on the global warming fable.

[Exnihiloest]

The text is not by Jean-Paul Oury, but by Sébastien Point, and refers to around twenty scientific publications, most of which are the collective work of international scientists, as everyone can see in the references at the end of the article. 'article.
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]

Sebastien Point <<< BIN

Sébastien has a doctorate in physics and a researcher in artificial lighting. He is the current president of the non-ionizing radiation section of the French Society for Radiation Protection (SFRP). He is the recipient of the Marie Curie medal awarded by the SFRP for his work on blue light. [/ B]

A pure crook president of a company which practices systematic lying on a large scale and which awards shit to its own president! Nothing to do with the climate, just lobbying ...

These are the references of Blédina! Ditto for his 500 assholes * ...

* 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.

[Exnihiloest]

Sebastien Point

Sébastien has a doctorate in physics and a researcher in artificial lighting. He is the current president of the non-ionizing radiation section of the French Society for Radiation Protection (SFRP). He is the recipient of the Marie Curie medal awarded by the SFRP for his work on blue light.
A pure crook president of a company which practices systematic lying on a large scale and which awards shit to its own president! Nothing to do with the climate, just lobbying ...

Who cares about your slander.


The article that demonstrates the lack of consensus is based on the following publications:

[1] John Cook, Naomi Oreskes, Peter T Doran, William RL Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed W Maibach, J Stuart Carlton, Stephan Lewandowsky, Andrew G Skuce, Sarah A Green, Dana Nuccitelli, Peter Jacobs, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler , Rob Painting and Ken Rice, Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming (2016) Environmental Research Letters, Volume 11, Number 4.

[2] John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs and Andrew Skuce, Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, Environmental Research Letters, Volume 8, Number 2.

[3] Oreskes N 2007 The scientific consensus on climate change: how do we know we're not wrong? Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press)

[4] Carlton JS, Perry-Hill R, Huber M and Prokopy LS 2015 The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists Environ. Res. Lett. 10 094025

[5] Verheggen B, Strengers B, Cook J, van Dorland R, Vringer K, Peters J, Visser H and Meyer L 2014 Scientists' views about attribution of global warming Environ. Sci. Technol. 48 8963–71

[6] Pew Research Center 2015 An elaboration of AAAS Scientists' views (http://pewinternet.org/files/2015/07/Re ... _FINAL.pdf)

[7] Stenhouse N, Maibach E, Cobb S, Ban R, Bleistein A, Croft P, Bierly E, Seitter K, Rasmussen G and Leiserowitz A 2014 Meteorologists' views about global warming: a survey of american meteorological society professional members Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 95 1029-40

[8] Rosenberg S, Vedlitz A, Cowman DF and Zahran S 2010 Climate change: a profile of US climate scientists' perspectives Clim. Change 101 311–29

[9] Bray D 2010 The scientific consensus of climate change revisited Environmental Science & Policy 13 340–50

[10] Anderegg WRL, Prall JW, Harold J and Schneider SH 2010 Expert credibility in climate change Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107 12107–9

[11] Doran P and Zimmerman M 2009 Examining the scientific consensus on climate change Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union 90 22

[12] Bray D and von Storch H 2007 (Geesthacht: GKSS) The Perspectives of Climate Scientists on Global Climate Change

[13] Oreskes N 2004 Beyond the ivory tower. The scientific consensus on climate change Science 306 1686

[14] Locher, C., Moher, D., Cristea, I., & Florian, N. (2020, July 15). Publication by association: the Covid-19 pandemic reveals relationships between authors and editors. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/64u3s

[15] Popular Technology.net: 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them

[16] Powell J. Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 2019; 37 (4): 183-184.

[17] James Powell is wrong about the 99.99% AGW consensus (skepticalscience.com)

[18] Method | James Lawrence Powell (jamespowell.org)

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

This is not slander, it is true. Nobody cares about you, your professional liars, and your scam 2016 article.

[Obamot]

probity blah-blah consensus.

The bias pro who talks to us about “probity” and “consensus”

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

And to get across his lies, always the Goebbels method ...

[Exnihiloest]

And to get across his lies, always the Goebbels method ...

And this list is a list of Nazis?

[1] John Cook, Naomi Oreskes, Peter T Doran, William RL Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed W Maibach, J Stuart Carlton, Stephan Lewandowsky, Andrew G Skuce, Sarah A Green, Dana Nuccitelli, Peter Jacobs, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler , Rob Painting and Ken Rice, Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming (2016) Environmental Research Letters, Volume 11, Number 4.

[2] John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs and Andrew Skuce, Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, Environmental Research Letters, Volume 8, Number 2.

[3] Oreskes N 2007 The scientific consensus on climate change: how do we know we're not wrong? Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press)

[4] Carlton JS, Perry-Hill R, Huber M and Prokopy LS 2015 The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists Environ. Res. Lett. 10 094025

[5] Verheggen B, Strengers B, Cook J, van Dorland R, Vringer K, Peters J, Visser H and Meyer L 2014 Scientists' views about attribution of global warming Environ. Sci. Technol. 48 8963–71

[6] Pew Research Center 2015 An elaboration of AAAS Scientists' views (http://pewinternet.org/files/2015/07/Re ..._FINAL.pdf)

[7] Stenhouse N, Maibach E, Cobb S, Ban R, Bleistein A, Croft P, Bierly E, Seitter K, Rasmussen G and Leiserowitz A 2014 Meteorologists' views about global warming: a survey of american meteorological society professional members Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 95 1029-40

[8] Rosenberg S, Vedlitz A, Cowman DF and Zahran S 2010 Climate change: a profile of US climate scientists' perspectives Clim. Change 101 311–29

[9] Bray D 2010 The scientific consensus of climate change revisited Environmental Science & Policy 13 340–50

[10] Anderegg WRL, Prall JW, Harold J and Schneider SH 2010 Expert credibility in climate change Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107 12107–9

[11] Doran P and Zimmerman M 2009 Examining the scientific consensus on climate change Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union 90 22

[12] Bray D and von Storch H 2007 (Geesthacht: GKSS) The Perspectives of Climate Scientists on Global Climate Change

[13] Oreskes N 2004 Beyond the ivory tower. The scientific consensus on climate change Science 306 1686

[14] Locher, C., Moher, D., Cristea, I., & Florian, N. (2020, July 15). Publication by association: the Covid-19 pandemic reveals relationships between authors and editors. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/64u3s

[15] Popular Technology.net: 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them

[16] Powell J. Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 2019; 37 (4): 183-184.

[17] James Powell is wrong about the 99.99% AGW consensus (skepticalscience.com)

[18] Method | James Lawrence Powell (jamespowell.org)


Those who made it clear that 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."


The only followers of Goebble are the two little shits who give each other a reply and spend their time in insults and slanders.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

And to get across his lies, always the Goebbels method ...

And this list is a list of Nazis?

CQFD !!!
Blédina method:

In fascist regimes, the lie is set up as a method of government, according to the principle enunciated by Goebbels: "Repeat a lie strong enough and long enough and people will believe it". Or again by Hitler himself: "A lie repeated ten times remains a lie; repeated ten thousand times it becomes a truth." This "hammering the lie" has been used extensively ...

[Exnihiloest]

...

In fascist regimes, the lie is set up as a method of government, according to the principle enunciated by Goebbels: "Repeat a lie strong enough and long enough and people will believe it". Or again by Hitler himself: "A lie repeated ten times remains a lie; repeated ten thousand times it becomes a truth." This "hammering the lie" has been used extensively ...

GuyGadeboisLeRetour has just repeated that dozens of scientists are Nazis. Why are they Nazis in the eyes of this rotten man?
Because they show us that there is no scientific consensus on anthropogenic warming, but anthropogenic warming is still GuyGadeboisLeRetour's "Mein Kampf".