Leto 2019 drugo najtoplejše leto

Leif je 13. jan 2020 ob 23:13 izjavil:

Saj tako menda piše... 97% opredeljenih

In koliko jih je to od vseh avtorjev 11944 pregledanih študij? Nikjer ne boš videl, ker je to ena BS raziskava.
Politika pa tole propagira kot 97% vseh znanstvenikov nasploh...

Citat iz tvojega linka:
Counter-terrorism police in south-east England have admitted an "error of judgement" after listing Extinction Rebellion as an "extreme ideology".

So? Niso teroristi, samo doomsday cult, ki ovira promet. Full napredek.

bili_39a je 13. jan 2020 ob 22:56 izjavil:

Leif je 13. jan 2020 ob 22:19 izjavil:

Bwaze6 je 13. jan 2020 ob 19:34 izjavil:

Jaz in cirka 97% znanstvenikov, ki so o podnebju objavili peer reviewed znanstvene članke? Bom tvegal in se postavil na očitno stran, ker o temi vem premalo, da bi delal lastne raziskave.

Ja to je ta BS 97% raziskava, ki jo vsi quoatajo, ko bi vsaj prebral kaj linkaš.

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

Daj razloži, kako iz tega dobiš 97% znanstvenikov, če 66.4% raziskav od 11944 ignoriraš, ker ne izrazijo mnenja o vzrokih segrevanja. Pa "endorsed AGW" lahko pomeni tudi, da ljudje dodamo nekaj malega k naravnemu segrevanju, ne da smo edini vzrok.

Obamina administracija potem ponavlja to 97% mantro kar naprej in zraven doda še dangerous in to potem kar postane resnica.

Tako je to v sodobni klimatski znanosti ali bolje rečeno propagandi.

Poskusi normirati na opredeljene...

Saj tako menda piše... 97% opredeljenih

Leif je 13. jan 2020 ob 16:34 izjavil:

Wikipedio lahko vsak editira če ne veš, kje so imena in naslovi teh "about one hundred" silnih akademikov? A je tudi Mickey Mouse tudi vmes? Dvomin da se hoče pečati s terorističnimi skupinami.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51071959

Citat iz tvojega linka:

Counter-terrorism police in south-east England have admitted an "error of judgement" after listing Extinction Rebellion as an "extreme ideology".

No tricks zone", na svoj spisek dodaja vse znanstvene članke, ki vpliv CO2 povišanja ocenjujejo na manj kot 1 stopinjo celzija, in zatorej on to označi kot "minuscule". Tudi če govorijo o dosedanjemu vplivu.

Within the last few years, over 50 papers have been added to our compilation of scientific studies that find the climate's sensitivity to doubled CO2 (280 ppm to 560 ppm) ranges from 0 to 1°C. When no quantification is provided, words like "negligible" are used to describe CO2's effect on the climate. The list has now reached 106 scientific papers.

Ne govori o "poziciji znanstvenikov", pač pa poziciji zajetih člankov. 66.4% raziskav "je ignoriral", ker ob iskanju sicer vsebujejo teme "global climate change" ali "global warming", vendar se potem glavna tema članka ukvarja z nečim drugim

An article stakes its claim on a regurgitation of false information from a blogger who rejects mainstream climate science.
...
The 400 studies in this latest piece cover topics wholly irrelevant to the question of anthropogenic global warming, including, for example, a study on the effect of wind turbines upon the viability of migratory bat populations.
...
The first time that Breitbart ran a NTZ based-story, numerous scientists listed in the report pointed out their their graphs had been digitally altered by NTZ to omit data, and that NTZ had either misinterpreted their papers or read them so superficially that the author of the post did not realize he was sometimes quoting from general background material and not the actual findings of the papers themselves.
...
NTZ employs three main strategies: straw man arguments that falsely change the evidence for global warming into something that is easier to refute; the inclusion of papers wholly irrelevant to the reality of anthropogenic climate change; and the inclusion of papers (or conference abstracts) that almost certainly underwent little or no peer review process.