Gallery
TwitPics
Wo sie denn sind, die 2500 “IPCC Wissenschaftler “, die den Weltuntergang einmütig herbei forschen? Ökologismus hat Material zusammen getragen und dem Panel auf den Zahn gefühlt.
Kate & David Holland und John McLean waren so frei und haben nachgezählt!
Nur drei Kapitel des IPCC AG I Abschätzungsberichtes sind grundlegend für alle Aussagen darüber, daß Menschen bedeutsam auf das Klima einwirken.
Die Gesamtzahl aufgelisteter Autoren und Reviewer der einzelnen Kapitel sind jeweils 50, 56 und 80. Die Zahl der Leit-Autoren ist 12, 16 und 9, wobei insgesamt nur 180 Personen als Autoren/Reviewer tätig waren. (6 Autoren waren an mehr als einem Kapitel beteiligt). Davon stammten 72 aus den USA, 29 aus Großbritannien, 15 aus Frankreich und der Rest von 20 kam aus anderen Ländern.
McLean schreibt dass es überraschender Weise wenig Unterstützung für die Weltuntergangsthesen gibt.
This analysis of the reviewers’ comments for Working Group I (WG I) shows that the reality is rather different and that there is surprisingly little explicit support for the key notion, that humans are very likely (90% to 95%) responsible for climate change.
Ökologismus schliesst mit der Bemerkung”Alle Achtung IPCC. Diesen Menschheitsbetrug muß euch erst mal einer nach machen.”
Interessant! Und was meinen unsere Klima Forscher dazu? Was sollen wir von all dem halten?
share it!
[...] Check it out! While looking through the blogosphere we stumbled on an interesting post today.Here’s a quick excerpt Wo sie denn sind, die 2500 “IPCC Wissenschaftler “, die den Weltuntergang einmütig herbei forschen? Ökologismus hat Material zusammen getragen und dem Panel auf den Zahn gefühlt. Kate & David Holland und John McLean waren so frei und haben nachgezählt! Nur drei Kapitel des IPCC AG I Abschätzungsberichtes sind grundlegend für alle Aussagen darüber, daß Menschen bedeutsam auf das Klima einwirken. Die Gesamtzahl aufgelisteter Autoren und Reviewer der einzelnen Kapitel sind jeweils 50, 56 u [...]
The Kyoto Protocol: The U.S. versus the World?
Using a variety of public opinion polls over a number of years and from a number of countries this paper revisits the questions of crossnational public concern for global warming first examined over a decade ago. Although the scientific community today speaks out on global climatic change in essentially a unified voice concerning its anthropogenic causes and potential devastating impacts at the global level, it remains the case that many citizens of a number of nations still seem to harbor considerable uncertainties about the problem itself. Although it could be argued that there has been a slight improvement over the last decade in the public’s understanding regarding the anthropogenic causes of global warming, the people of all the nations studied remain largely uniformed about the problem. In a recent international study on knowledge about global warming, the citizens of Mexico led all fifteen countries surveyed in 2001 with just twenty-six percent of the survey respondents correctly identifying burning fossil fuels as the primary cause of global warming. The citizens of the U.S., among the most educated in the world, where somewhere in the middle of the pack, tied with the citizens of Brazil at fifteen percent, but slightly lower than Cubans. In response to President Bush’s withdrawal of the Kyoto Protocol in 1991, the U.S. public appears to be far more supportive of the action than the citizens of a number of European countries where there was considerable outrage about the decision.
Carlos Menendez
http://www.segurosmagazine.es
@ c.Mendez
ABSTRACT of David Hollands findings:
The climatic “hockey stick” hypothesis has systemic problems. I review how the IPCC came to adopt the “hockey stick” as scientific evidence of human interference with the climate. I report also on independent peer reviewed studies of the “hockey stick” that were instigated by the US House of Representatives in 2006, and which comprehensively invalidated it. The “divergence” problem and the selective and unreliable nature of treering reconstructions are discussed, as is the unsatisfactory review process of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report that
ignored the invalidation of the “hockey stick”. The error found recently in the GISS temperature series is also noted. It is concluded that the IPCC has neither the
structure nor the necessary independence and supervision of its processes to be acceptable as the monopoly authority on climate science. Suggestions are made as
to how the IPCC could improve its procedures towards producing reports and recommendations that are more scientifically sound.
Also current costs of the Kyoto Protocoll: $418,000,000,000! it¨s effect: 0.004 degree Celsius less! very cool is it not?