Gulf Stream, the Achilles heel of the climate

[humus]

(And Bozo to try to make us believe that we have not found new mechanisms, new explanations for paradoxical phenomena due to the knowledge acquired recently and that climatology would necessarily be frozen like certain parts of the exact sciences ... licensed crook!)

well no it's Izzy who said that climatology never contradicts itself, I just said on the contrary that it is not because something was published at the moment that it was correct. Lack of reading comprehension, Guignoldebois?

Indeed, climatology does not contradict itself, it is because of global warming that there can be local cooling.

[ABC2019]

(And Bozo to try to make us believe that we have not found new mechanisms, new explanations for paradoxical phenomena due to the knowledge acquired recently and that climatology would necessarily be frozen like certain parts of the exact sciences ... licensed crook!)

well no it's Izzy who said that climatology never contradicts itself, I just said on the contrary that it is not because something was published at the moment that it was correct. Lack of reading comprehension, Guignoldebois?

Indeed, climatology does not contradict itself, it is because of global warming that there can be local cooling.

that's what I was saying, it's by saying everything and its opposite that we are sure to be right ...

http://www.globalwarming.org/2010/12/27 ... -the-past/

[Remundo]

obviously you do not know the scientific community well ...
validating a post absolutely does not mean that it is fair. Objective analyzes of the scientific content of publications show that approximately 90% of published results contain errors or are completely false. It is not very serious, what is interesting, it is to offer material for discussion, not necessarily to be fair. But this should not be taken as a criterion of truth - moreover all the publications you quote contradict previous publications!

And to have the money to do your research, I repeat that it is interesting to scare.

that's very interesting!

ABC hypermific on the scientific world of the IPCC, the doubt inhabits it!

on the other hand the same factors on the political-pharmaceutical world covidist and the health pass, there, it becomes again a credulous baby.

[humus]

that's what I was saying, it's by saying everything and its opposite that we are sure to be right ...

On what I have just stated above, you are intellectually dishonest, as very often, not to say as always.
At least that doesn't change, so if I follow your logic you are always wrong, since you always say the same thing.
(reasoning knowingly perverted in the image of yours)

[ABC2019]

obviously you do not know the scientific community well ...
validating a post absolutely does not mean that it is fair. Objective analyzes of the scientific content of publications show that approximately 90% of published results contain errors or are completely false. It is not very serious, what is interesting, it is to offer material for discussion, not necessarily to be fair. But this should not be taken as a criterion of truth - moreover all the publications you quote contradict previous publications!

And to have the money to do your research, I repeat that it is interesting to scare.

that's very interesting!

ABC hypermific on the scientific world of the IPCC, the doubt inhabits it!

on the other hand the same factors on the political-pharmaceutical world covidist and the health pass, there, it becomes again a credulous baby.

I am not at all gullible on the fact that pharmaceutical labs seek to earn money, nor on health scandals such as contaminated blood (which was due to a public establishment for that matter) or Mediator.

Simply an accusation must be based on hard facts and not manipulate them. What I am observing is that the accusers shamelessly manipulate the data to arrive at their conclusions.

If you want to convince me, start by being rigorous yourself - and when they are mixed with an anti-scientific discourse, for example denying the interest of double-blind experiments in principle (when this is precisely the only method allowing to be sure to measure an effect that is not polluted by other factors), the accusations become totally non-credible.

It's like your accusations of dictatorship on the government, start by setting an example on the forum that you direct, instead of treating with contempt the legitimate requests that one addresses to you, and there you will be able to be credible in the criticisms which you address to the others.

[ABC2019]

that's what I was saying, it's by saying everything and its opposite that we are sure to be right ...

On what I have just stated above, you are intellectually dishonest, as very often, not to say as always.
At least that doesn't change, so if I follow your logic you are always wrong, since you always say the same thing.
(reasoning knowingly perverted in the image of yours)

dishonesty is making accusations without justifying them. I said that climatologists announced in 2000 that there would soon be no more snow in Europe, and in 2020 that there would be a lot more. I put the sources in front of you, it's written in black and white. And am I the one who is dishonest?

it is you who finish discrediting yourself by refusing to recognize the evidence that is put in front of you, you prove that your convictions are purely ideological and not based on facts, like the mistrust that you express next to vaccines - your mode of operation is clear, like that of your friends: if that leads to accusing capitalist society, it is right, if not, it is wrong. So CR is fair because it leads to accusation of capitalist society, and vaccines are dangerous because it leads to accusation of capitalist society. CQFD.

It's just not science, it's ideology.

And of course, since you only operate like that, you interpret everything that is said against you as proof that you are ideologically on the other side, because you only know how to reason like that. Whether you can just rely on the existence of facts, regardless of any political considerations, is completely beyond you. It is outside of your mental functioning.

[Remundo]

It's like your accusations of dictatorship on the government, start by setting an example on the forum that you direct, instead of treating with contempt the legitimate requests that one addresses to you, and there you will be able to be credible in the criticisms which you address to the others.

already said, but here there is no censorship or dictatorship, quite the contrary.

We can not help it if the pride of some is touched and they want to break the thermometer rather than watch the fire they bring to the forum... it's life.

[ABC2019]

It's like your accusations of dictatorship on the government, start by setting an example on the forum that you direct, instead of treating with contempt the legitimate requests that one addresses to you, and there you will be able to be credible in the criticisms which you address to the others.

already said, but here there is no censorship or dictatorship, quite the contrary.

no censorship when you are banned without cause? warf ...

We can not help it if the pride of some is touched and they want to break the thermometer rather than watch the fire they bring to the forum... it's life.

question fire, you are very tolerant with posts which are only offensive and without any argument, how do you want the discussions to be peaceful under these conditions? personally I sometimes answer when someone pricks me, but it's not my normal way of discussing, I bring arguments as much as I can, and I only have insults in front of me. But hey in the end, we have the forum that we are trying to have ...

[humus]

And am I the one who is dishonest?

Absolutely.
In science / research, we have every right (and a duty!) To refine our analysis.
Global warming does exist and it can cause local cooling, not seen initially.
What is dishonest is to consider any evolution on the fringes of the understanding of the phenomenon, as calling everything into question.
Because that's what you're trying to do.

It's just not science, it's ideology.

Congratulations, there you are lucid about your own attitude, thank you for your honesty, for once.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

If you want to convince me, start by being rigorous yourself - and when they are mixed with an anti-scientific discourse, for example denying the interest of double-blind experiments in principle (when this is precisely the only method allowing to be sure to measure an effect that is not polluted by other factors)

And puppet to bring out this lie when no one has said that. What has been said is that randomized double-blind studies are equivalent to observational studies. No more, no less, and it's scientifically validated. Still caught his hand in the bag blatantly lying in his own interests!