Weather consequences of global warming on your life (and faster than you think)

[ABC2019]

Pedant! Qualifier that must often be attributed to you

yeah so when you don't have an answer, you go to insults ... what you blame the jogger ;).

Sorry but I'm just reminding the BABA of the scientific method. It's good to apply it to vaccines (and not to make a point of particular cases because such and such had a heart attack 2 months after a vaccine, as if that proved something), but it is the same for the climate. The causalities must be proven by serious statistics, and the least we can say is that 99% of the speeches produced on the climate are produced by people who have no scientific rigor, and are content to repeat the ambient speech.

[Exnihiloest]

Pedant! Qualifier that must often be attributed to you

I have noticed that accusations of pedantry are usually made by the less competent against the more competent, ie against those who naturally use the precise language and forms of reasoning of the field concerned.
If that's all you've found, a totally unjustified argumentum ad personam, to respond to a perfectly justified objection, the one that even a non-specialist can judge whether a method is scientific or not, it's because you really don't understand the argument. Pull yourself together, or you'll end up being able to talk as equals with Obamot.

[izentrop]

[Exnihiloest]

https://twitter.com/nicolasberrod/status/1515331884150108170

In nuclear, it is from the beginning of his mandate that he should have started, and without ecological justification. But it was not fashionable, Macron made circles of legs to ecologists, going so far as to sacrifice NDDL against the opinion of a popular consultation, ecologists rather anti-nuclear at the time.
And today here he is again bowing to environmentalism to recover votes at Mélenchon (and yes, it's not just the far right to talk to us about ecology).
The solutions are only technological and industrial, therefore beyond the reach of ecology. "Getting out of gas and oil", of course, but there is no need for an ecological alibi for that. Ecology is only one component, and not the most important, in the way of producing our energy.
So to sum up, I don't see any vision for the future with Macron, he clings to the branches, claiming much too late a need that already existed at the start of his mandate and was only justified by energy independence and necessity of its low cost, keystones of the creation of economic wealth.

[izentrop]

I don't see any vision for the future at Macron

and you see some at MLP?
It is only for nuclear that I agree with her.

[Exnihiloest]

I don't see any vision for the future at Macron

and you see some at MLP?

Even less at MLP! Her lack of intelligence would be a handicap for the country, at least on the international scene, she would make the French look like idiots (some here will tell us that the French are, generalizing their case by getting ready to vote for her).

It is only for nuclear that I agree with her.

Yes. Today, apart from a few rare green or pro-Putin extremists, everyone is.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

6 to 14 EPR with Maquereau, 20 with the mad fascist (who declares that she wants to dismantle wind power and stop it), EDF with a 26 billion deficit, Orano which closes La Hague, it is sure that it is in nuclear , the future of the French...

[Exnihiloest]

...it is sure that it is in the nuclear, the future of the French...

Toutafé.

[humus]

[izentrop]

6 to 14 EPR with Maquereau, 20 with the mad fascist (who declares that she wants to dismantle the wind turbine and stop it

Agree with both for the shots post498300.html # p498300