Forhorse wrote:Exnihiloest wrote:I remind you that science, unlike religions, is not a set of dogmas in which one should blindly believe.
say the one who believes that everything is fine and prefers to look at the world with blinders ...
Funny kind of inappropriate reflection, coming from a guy who has just told us that he does not listen to the old people talking outside their domain (which is already a fallacy, youthism), and who in addition, when we explains to him that the president of the IPCC is an old man, and that he is not a climatologist, comes to make the argument ad personam against the one who speaks, we see it here, rather than apologize for having said bullshit. We cannot expect intellectual honesty from those handling ad hoc arguments.
The fact that the IPCC chairman's area of expertise is the economy, not the climate, says a lot about this body. It is not a scientific body but a political one. A scientific body does not tell politicians what to do, and a scientific body has its work and conclusions validated by independent teams, before a consensus can be reached to take political action.
We are not in science but in politics, and for the most narrow-minded environmentalists, in religion: it doesn't matter what is said, as long as it goes in the direction of their faith: the sermons of the climate apocalypse which hope- they will lead people to call their ecofascism as a solution, namely to sacrifice man to nature, or rather to the childish idea they have of it through their images of Epinal.