Climate compliance: science or ideology? – Irev Europe

The point of view of the engine

The human responsibility of carbon dioxide in the process of climate renewal appears as an absolute fact within the framework of scientific consensus on the subject. The reference in the article is an Australian study[1] It was published in 2013 which concluded that 97% of relevant scientists consider climate change to be of anthropogenic origin.

The methodology is interesting: 11,944 publications not including the terms “global warming” and “global climate change” between 1991 and 2011 in lecture committee reviews were analyzed and ranked around the criterion of human responsibility.

However, on ces 11944, 7970 so it les deux tiers ne donnent aucun avis sur the sujet and sont exclusive of the panel. At the remaining levels of this first publication, only 1010 publications (equivalent to 8.5% of the total) included clear advice and 986 among all the ineffective factors that make a person responsible. It’s over 97% good… and over 97% to 8.5%… that’s right 8.25% of the posts in question!

However, the vast majority of the scientific community supposedly offers no clear advice on the question of what to try in the publishing professional cadre.

An American study of a similar nature was published in 2021[2] Producing comparable proportions, the dignity of a “mosaic republic,” but again applied to a minority of publications, means paying close attention through the door.

Is it possible for words to lose their meaning? Can these results be used to reach “consensus”?

The obvious irony is actually the failure of scientific engagement, in the face of entirely new ideas.

It can be easily explained:

The function of the atmosphere is related to the influence of a large multi-factorial complex, applicable to many scientific disciplines (astronomy, oceanography, glaciology, marine physics, etc.).

Of all these characteristics, only an integrated set of intervening factors can be suggested. Simple simulation models are not that feasible.

Therefore, showing something of certainty is necessary to place on the shoulders of the champion of special competence, which naturally incites reserve, when they are ready to deploy.

Some sciences, however, not least mediation, are exempt from this reserve.

I could also say that this is the brand of these “participant” sciences that involve their work and personal convictions.

John Cook, the lead author of the benchmark study, did not put the “ethical” aspect behind him as he approached: “We want the article to have a tangible impact,” and we did not hesitate to declare it in an interview (Scientific American – July 24, 2014).

As with others, is it a new political policy, but this renewed politics does not indicate that it does not last at the same time as it destroys scientific ethics more element? These presentations come across clearly as acts of struggle.

If all the scientists were questioned in the street, they would agree, like everything else, with the idea of ​​the great (and catastrophic) role of human carbon dioxide, and this cannot be as if he were pretending, but as he says it is not doxa ainsi fabriquée et entretenue.

It is an impossible process indeed for a researcher in an activity looking to return a great deal of interest. The exercise of their financial affairs is immediately at serious risk, in accordance with the prohibition of the reason for criticism in this matter.

History is as much a vanity of principle as scientific consensus.

The bulk of major scientific progress contradicts the pre-existing consensus on a picture of plate tectonics that was imposed approximately 60 years ago on a community of geologists who did not arise.

The climate consensus is also very weak although the revenge of 2,000 independent scientists who did not receive the Nobel Prize was published in November 2024, in a formal declaration “There is no urgent need for climate” (Clintel.org), this suggestion is for common sense, the real situation To know: “The Governing Council for the World is that science must make a better effort to understand the climate system, and policy must focus on minimizing climate damage potential to prioritize adaptation strategies based on advanced and affordable technologies.”

Despite this and the idea of ​​“consensus” that combines without contradiction, the title of climate peace nicely tempers the set of public institutions at Notre Bay and in the academic world. Public policy decisions are stupid. Despite the high scientific authority, the Academy of Sciences, responsibility is central, and is involved in this form of Omerta.

The rule is that lamps are started by all people who are not good at the task. The Sciences and the Société also enter into the largest perdantes.

Author introduction

The author is an engineer (Nancy Mines) and geologist (PhD in Mathematical Hydrogeology – Ecole des Mines de Paris); The old PDG is an institutional version of the specialized research on digital simulation models for industry (Transvalor SA), which is a concrete experience of the digital model applied in different fields, without geography.

It is a family of research environment, for 20 years Director of the ARMINES Association, the participatory research structure of the School of Mines (Academic Research Partnership – Private Research).

It is very good for people who experience, appreciate the experience and competence to practice why and to critique the state of climate science and its context.

[1] John Cook and others: Environmental Research Letters: Measuring the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature -the environment. Accuracy. Lett. 8 024024- 15 05 2013.

[2] Mark Lynas, Benjamin Z. Holton, and others: Environmental Research Letters: More than 99% consensus on human-caused climate change in peer-reviewed scientific papers . 19 10 2021.