Analyses on anthropogenic global warming

[Janic]

still the same pseudoscientific source that self-commissions to itself like the TJ!
Today is invoked in the name of the all-powerful science what previously was the equally powerful name of God. We change our denomination, like the political parties that think to make a new virginity, but behind hide the same intolerant pretensions to believe to hold a sacrosanct absolute truth.
Ahmed has the wisdom to sign: "do not believe what I'm telling you"leaving everyone the choice to follow their own path starting from a part of knowledge.

[izentrop]

still the same pseudoscientific source that self-commissions to itself like the TJ!

"It is the one who says it who is there" is not an argument.
Everything written by this author is verifiable

Author

Theo Mathurin
PhD student in physics of materials and nanotechnology, Ecole Centrale de Lille

Declaration of interests

Theo Mathurin does not work, does not advise, does not own shares, does not receive funding from an organization that could benefit from this article, and has declared no other affiliation than his academic position.

Just put his prejudices aside and it seems difficult for some.

[eclectron]

1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xjm2nhGxMbI

2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6N1udn3-62o

1 + 2 = 3 = Damage of acting well for the wrong reasons,
The Earth, our cradle is well to be preserved, "We are always guests on this earth" (jiddu Krishnamurti)

[izentrop]

Hi eclectron,
Listening to the first seconds of the second video was enough for me to understand what it was about ... Stop

It is not with videos that we prove anything

[eclectron]

Hi Izentrop,

It is not with videos that we prove anything

This is not wrong but it is still a good way to convey information to those who agree to hear it.

A+

[Exnihiloest]

Hi Izentrop,

It is not with videos that we prove anything

This is not wrong but it is still a good way to convey information to those who agree to hear it.

A+

The videos show that there are good scientists who are challenging anthropogenic warming.
But it is when one enters scientific publications, especially those of physicists, that one understands that climatologists do not master their subject, it is much more complex than their simplifying models. Consequently, their forecasts have a relevance not far from those of Nostradamus:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... wrong.html

[Ahmed]

A common argument of climate skeptics is that the IPCC community would be inclined to interpret climate data in an alarmist manner, on the grounds that it would promote its career plan and the influx of subsidies. This presentation is misleading, not because it is totally devoid of substance, but because it is incomplete (framing bias) and because it suggests that the proponents of non-anthropic influence would be disembodied scientists and completely at fault. the gap of the temptations of this world, thus brought to a greater scientific rigor.
However, the scientific world as a whole is highly dependent on the institutions, which are highly dependent on the economic powers on which they depend, which in turn are highly correlated with the exploitation of fossil fuels or its use. It is therefore reasonable to think that many will choose to postpone the changes that taking into account the responsibilities of a productive mode would entail and that would harm the immediate interests of their backers.
Another argument would be that climatology would not be mature enough to be able to decide with sufficient certainty on the evolution of the climate and the real causes of it. Let us first note that there is no science of completion, which does not prevent us from taking advantage of what is known. On the other hand, it is surprising to derive a decision from ignorance, which is blithely done (sorry, I could not resist! ) those who exhort not to do anything!
This clearly demonstrates that the nature of the positions in favor of a natural cause or an anthropic responsibility is of an ideological nature (which I claim for my part fully!). Science, in general, can (and it is already huge) provide lessons only within its field of competence, then, based on these results that decisions of a political nature (in the true sense of the term and not political politics) can be taken.
Unfortunately, experience shows that this is not what usually prevails and that life choices, like their meaning, are subject to alienating determinisms (in the sense that they present themselves as externalities to men, although resulting directly and entirely from his actions = fetishism).

[izentrop]

This clearly demonstrates that the nature of the positions in favor of a natural cause or of an anthropic responsibility is of an ideological nature (which I claim for my part fully!).

I can read again, I do not understand what you claim?

... there are some good scientists who challenge an anthropogenic warming

Scientists good in their fields and in error for others are enough its currents, what matters is the consensus.

[Ahmed]

Hi, Izentrop!
What I mean is that science provides us with objective knowledge, from which technical applications for acting on our environment flow. However, the decision whether or not to use these possibilities should be made by our free will, based on what we deem fit or not, according to collectively agreed value scales. This is not what we observe and practically everything that is possible will be applied. This is why I claim the legitimacy of the ideology (a bit strong term, because connoted very pejoratively), or if you prefer the intimate conviction, the ethics, to the extent that it is not the role of the science of judging in our place the criteria of a good life and the values ​​that refer to it, since it is not their area of ​​competence.

On the other hand, as you point out, climate-skepticism is a back-fight that lacks credibility. Personally, I find it a bit unfortunate that it is this problem of climate change that is dragging a whole section of public opinion towards more ecological considerations, while so many other reasons militate in this direction; I only hope that this first step will lead to these ...

[Exnihiloest]

A common argument of climate skeptics is that the IPCC community would be inclined to interpret climate data in an alarmist manner ...

"The best way to check a prediction model of the future is to apply it to the past. In this case, we know the final result as well as the initial conditions. Just enter these in the system and check if you get the same result as the one saved by the tracks left by previous climate changes. Two researchers have scrupulously applied this method ..."
http://www.slate.fr/life/72879/climat-p ... dire-passe
"One in twelve models passed the exam"
"To their surprise, only one of them, the one developed by the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research installed in the premises of the MET Office, the English national meteorological organization, passed the test ... "

See also:
https://www.contrepoints.org/2013/10/30 ... limatiques

The facts belie you, Ahmed. Besides, you have not presented any, so I'm going back to your accusation that the protesters of human climatic warming would be on an ideological ground, when they are obviously his supporters.

A science incapable of prediction is not one, or at least as far as climatology is concerned, not yet one but a sketch on which we should not rely in terms of political action, as long as it is not will not be proven.