Is Jean-Marc Jancovici a c ...?

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

A five-year-old would understand that.

A five year old would understand that you are a con artist and a liar. Your blog is a complete sham.

[realistic ecology]

A five year old would understand that you are a con artist and a liar.

Ah! no ! This is a bit short, young man !
You could say… Oh! God ! ... many things in short ...
By varying the tone, - for example, hold:

Contemptuous;
A five-year-old?
But no, it does not make the weight,
It's still too high,
too little twist,
It does not yet know all the profanity,
All the falsehoods,
That a few adults handle with expertise.

Careful ;
A five-year-old child, beware!
These little ones are not yet indoctrinated enough,
As are some adults.
They even ask questions.

...

[Exnihiloest]

A five year old would understand that you are a con artist and a liar.

Ah! no ! This is a bit short, young man !
You could say… Oh! God ! ... many things in short ...
By varying the tone, - for example, hold:

Contemptuous;
A five-year-old?
But no, it does not make the weight,
It's still too high,
too little twist,
It does not yet know all the profanity,
All the falsehoods,
That a few adults handle with expertise.

Careful ;
A five-year-old child, beware!
These little ones are not yet indoctrinated enough,
As are some adults.
They even ask questions.

...

Laudable effort, realistic ecology, but I fear a waste of time: the spirit is useless with the bitches, it passes over them. I also tried. They only know how to assert their creed and their infused pedantic science, and insult others from the height of their baseness.

To return to the subject, if we want to be realistic in terms of ecology, there is reason to doubt anthropogenic CO2 as the main cause of global warming, and even more so, of the capacity that we would have to counter-square the effect of possible CO2 warming.
If you look at past expired IPCC predictions, they are at least double to triple false. They don't understand the subject, they don't yet have climate science, they play around with models without having the right equations or the right parameters. Physicists, astrophysicists, and statistical mathematicians regularly use them for their mistakes and omissions. Indeed, contrary to what is repeated to us, there is no scientific consensus.

The reduction of CO2 should be the last concern of ecology. Not only is this not a priority since there is no climate emergency, but it is a project to be fought because it will swallow up considerable sums for nothing, to the detriment of the peoples, impoverished, or to the detriment of more environmentally sensitive sectors such as recycling or waste treatment. In addition, we see that it promotes the deployment of alternatives to CO2, counterproductive because even more polluting, such as wind power (landscape, plastic, concrete).

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

(The two kids, one of whom dares to claim to be an environmentalist, have only succeeded in one thing: To ridicule themselves since they come to ramble on certain subjects ...)

[realistic ecology]

The reduction of CO2 should be the last concern of ecology.

It would then be necessary to say what ecology is according to you. What we see is that environmentalists have taken up the subject. Which does not mean that it is in good hands.

"the ability we would have to counteract the effect of possible [anthropogenic] CO2 warming."
It is not a question of counteracting the effect, but of reducing the causes. If they are anthropogenic (not physical) it is theoretically possible ... but if they are anthropogenic (and they are) ... if they require humans to change their behavior then it is probably mission possible.
Which does not prevent you from trying.
The bitches will still enrage: Trade purchasing power for free time?

"There is no scientific consensus [on global warming]."
If you think consensus means 100%, you are right.
But in the real world, zero does not exist, neither infinity, nor 100%
There will always be a few (rare) gurus puffed up with certainties. Just as there are a few rare gurus who are convinced that there are treatments for Covid.

[Exnihiloest]

To reduce the causes is only to counteract the effects. If we did not assume the harmful effects of global warming, we would have no reason to reduce its causes.
It has been calculated that even if we respected the Paris climate agreement, we would not even gain a tenth of a degree in 2100. All this is in vain. On the other hand, even if we won 2 °, disheveled hypothesis, what a waste would it cost? Because given the staggering cost of this kind of business, it would mean sacrificing everything else. To commit suicide immediately, especially in developing countries, to prevent a hypothetical future apocalypse, I do not see the need for it.

By "consensus" I don't mean "100%". I hear a large majority of scientists speaking in their field of expertise. The consensus is only among scientists paid to study the impact of humans on the climate, so obviously the IPCC as a priority. In them the natural causes are obliterated. This is why the interventions of physicists and astrophysicists should be followed closely.

This alone leads to the conclusion that there is no consensus:
https://www.valeursactuelles.com/societ ... limatique/
I follow quite closely what happens in physics, where theories much more extravagant than those of climatology have been produced, notably relativity and quantum mechanics. I have never seen scientists contest them either en masse or publicly at the UN, a sign that we have a problem with climatology, less a science today, than political manipulation.

Relativity and quantum mechanics are indeed science, which produced the equations verifying all the observations that we could make.
Climatology is not, and we do not even know when it will be, since the models still do not converge, and even on this level, are getting worse.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Again this imposture of the 500 assholes signing a shit? You're swollen Tryphon. There are only branques in the list and more than the fascosphere to relay it!

[phil53]

You are super boring with your ego war.
This thread is no longer of interest.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

You are super boring with your ego war.

It's not a war of ego. The other sucker always brings out the same lies, the same propaganda on repeat and the same puppets disowned by all serious scientists all the time.

[ABC2019]

The other sucker always brings out the same lies, the same propaganda on repeat and the same puppets disowned by all serious scientists all the time.

do you believe in serious scientists? first news ...