What climate change? Band of crooks !!

[fabio.gel]

Big problem however, septic or no we have no solution since almost no one wants to significantly reduce its energy consumption. Starting from the renewable energies will never be worthy considering the increase in the number of human who even if it slowed down is not ready to stop.
So, what do we do?
Frankly I see no way out for future generations

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttTOk2lTxOA

[Christophe]

Hi,

I'm doing a little bit of a tick because I recently had a discussion with a researcher involved in a scientific debate on global warming, and there might be factors non-anthropogenic which could play a significant role in the global warming of the planet earth, but their influence is still unknown. (I use the conditional because nothing is yet proven even if measures and correlations seem to show their impact).

These are sunspots reflecting a drop in temperature on the surface of the sun that affects the earth's surface.

https://www.google.fr/search?q=taches+solaires&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiTnfybvYvKAhWFrRoKHUqLAXQQsAQIKw&biw=1143&bih=695&dpr=0.9#tbm=isch&q=taches+solaires+sur+le+soleil

Thus, among the "climate-skeptics", there are those who outright deny global warming (a priori for lobbying reasons), and those who doubt that this warming has only an anthropogenic origin ...

That there are other causes than human activity is possible but it should not reduce our responsibility for global warming ...

For solar tasks I think they are synonymous with increasing solar activity ...

[Ahmed]

Do not confuse school tasks and sunspots!

[Christophe]

Oops ... yes it's all about stains in this case!

And if there were more solar tasks of great magnitude in the world, the planet would be better!

[Obamot]

Up to 13 ° C and hail in January! (Christmas was even hotter!) 2 hail storms this morning!

I don't believe it O_o yet I'm completely in the East (nah I didn't say that I was "completely in the West" Nope)

[Obamot]

There was snow on the plain, but it did not last long, just a few cm.

Here is a convergent study of the pro and anti (warming) and which shows that it is well taken account of the opinion of the latter ...:

Next ice age delayed by 50'000 years
The next ice age, which could have occurred in 50'000 years, could be delayed by human-induced global warming, according to a study. Glacial ages are partly related to natural changes in the Earth's orbit.

If the emissions reach 1000 Gt C, "the probability of seeing the Ice Age begin before 100'000 years should be much reduced", say the authors.

Source: https://www.bluewin.ch/fr/infos/faits-d ... u-rec.html

The problem is that anyway from here 100'000 years to the rhythm or goes the planetary waste, there will be nothing! There may be only a few centuries of reserves left: at maturity it will already be very long that there will be no more oil, no natural gas, no coal or uranium ...!

[Ahmed]

If some survive until then, they will have interest to moult so far!

[Christophe]

Up to 13 ° C and hail in January! (Christmas was even hotter!) 2 hail storms this morning!

Well that's it: the winter cold has arrived !!
Here a good 5 cm of snow that holds ...

[Obamot]

Yes, it was good powder ... when it fell, 1cm again tonight!

Tomorrow and the following days, a few showers again.

[Exnihiloest]

+ 20 ° C compared to normal in some regions of the globe right now: https://fr.news.yahoo.com/douceur-anorm ... 01777.html

That all the climatic experts who denied the heating explain this to us please or have the courage to change profession or better to shoot!

Warming at a specific time and place in the world would be evidence of warming overall ?!
That's it, end of the story, it's what is called a "selection bias".

As for our "responsibility", it would first be necessary to demonstrate that CO2 is indeed the cause and not the consequence of warming (which the past shows), that anthropogenic CO2 has a significant influence in relation to all CO2, that '' a warming or an excess of CO2 (to what extent and over how long?) would be more catastrophic than beneficial, and finally that the absence of CO2 production would not have had even more catastrophic consequences because of the absence of alternative solutions at the same cost, the only ones which would have made it possible to avoid sclerosing the economy.

Happy new year anyway