Die Dateien müssen kleiner als 100 MB sein.Zulässige Dateierweiterungen: png gif jpg jpeg.
Hmm.. Ein Bild eines sinkenden Schiffes.. lustig aufgemacht.. Das "Argument" ist ein scherzhafter Angriff auf den Intellekt des Lesenden, sofern er mit den Aussagen der Hypothese nicht konform geht.. Ich bin überzeugt! Ach ne doch nicht.. Da ist Patrick Moore.. einer der Gründerväter von Greenpeace.. mit Doktortitel. Vielleicht schau ich mir doch mal die wissenschaftliche Methode an.. hmmm
"...about 100% of scientists believe the climate is changing, mainly because that's what it always does. Only about 50 to 60% believe it is largely driven by human activity, the rest believe human activity is a factor. Only 0.3% of climate scientists believe that the consequences of climate change will be catastrophic. These figures are contained in the paper Cook et al 2013, which is the one always quoted by people claiming a 97% consensus, having never read the actual paper.
There is no denial of scientifically proven fact. The theory of anthropogenic global warming is a theory, not a fact. As such it is a very shaky theory because observation is failing to support the theory. Normally that should consign a theory to the trash can, but climate scientists still have sufficient faith in it to keep it going, and do keep tweaking it to try to get it to mimic observation, so far without much success. The main problem with it is that models based on the theory predict twice as much warming as is actually happening, and that is a serious flaw.
I really think you should not accuse people of stupidity and scientific illiteracy when you yourself seem quite unaware of the science itself and merely trot out what is essentially propaganda." Derek Colman
wer genau ist dieser derek colman? auf jeden fall hat er das paper wohl auch nicht gelesen...http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
Mein Großvater, warum? Was hat das mit irgendetwas zu tun wer Derek Colman ist?
"“Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”
This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.
Even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.
Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.
The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:
“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”—Dr. Richard Tol
“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”—Dr. Craig Idso
“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”—Dr. Nir Shaviv
“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .” —Dr. Nicola Scafetta
"pH7 reicht uns nicht! Wir fordern pH0." Grünes Wissenschaftsverständnis.
“Climate change” is a manipulative, rubber term used to mean anything from “the climate changes” (which everyone agrees with) to “we impact the climate at least a tiny amount” (which everyone agrees with) to “we impact the climate for the better” (yes, that’s possible) to “we are making the climate much more dangerous” (which much fewer people agree with) to “we are making the climate much more dangerous and the only response is to stop using fossil fuels but also incoherently oppose nuclear power and hydroelectric power while advocating the worst-performing energy technologies, solar and wind.”
Climate Scientologists are usually advocates of the last, bizarre position. Since they can’t argue for that view honestly and directly, they dishonestly name their view “climate change.” That’s the equivalent of a eugenics advocate calling his view “evolution.” Which is, in fact, exactly what eugenics advocates did. And just as we needed more thinkers back then, so we need more Climate Thinkers today."
"We always have to adapt to the climate, whether man is contributing to the changes in it or not."
"The climate-modeling community, to my knowledge, has the worst predictive record of any prominent field of enquiry today. And yet their latest doomsday predictions are treated on par with the sun rising tomorrow."
"By treating speculation based on invalidated climate prediction models as truth, “news” stories are actually fiction."
"Contrary to “green” mythology, man’s natural environment is neither clean nor safe."
"The dogma that man is ruining the planet rather than improving it is a religion, a source of prestige, and a career for too many people."
Leider funktioniert auch das nicht, denn die gemeinte Art von "Zweifler" = Leugner glauben nicht an Wissenschaft. Allerdings verstehen die so wenig, daß sie dann auch das Bild nicht verstehen.
Das ist so ähnlich wie der Versuch, durch weas-zum-Lese-geben die unterstellt nicht Bildschirm und Anleitung lesenden Tesla-Autopilotenfahrer zum Lesen zu bewegen.
Wie man ganz fundiert Whiskey an Schwachmaten verkauft
Was ist denn dein Problem?
Kauf dir eine Stoppuhr und zähl noch mal nach.