RT @NarfGb: 1/3 Answer Spoke someone who is too stupid to read the linked studies and understand reality and geo chemistry (Henry's law)…
Dude traut sich nicht die Kommentarfunktion auf zu Lassen.. Dampfack
@Jou0523 @ThaRocka @sascha_m_k Oh und btw, die Grundlagen des Klimawandels sind absolut sicher und hundertfach belegt. Es gibt bei kaum einem anderen Thema einen so alten und überwältigenden Konsens. https://t.co/eCMreZ7XGa https://t.co/EW2ZfiqeDG https:/
@dermothee @K4Climate Google found that for me after I typed six words. https://t.co/94vy9qTWPT
@TrumpenDecker @ArgyleBecky @afneil @mailplus That is no evidence at all. It simply does not address the issue This paper does: https://t.co/MQHnarcscT it has been used to support a claim of 97% consensus but its authors are not stupid enough to make t
@ByteOctet @antoine_B5o5 @fmbreon @Thomas_Mng @JphTanguy 2014 https://t.co/vlemvOyZeA https://t.co/oRQD7hLvuM https://t.co/M8ojuhNj0g La synthèse donne ça : https://t.co/s06y34tKLj
@Knaning1 @deugmans @ongehoordnedtv @marcelcrok Klok en klepel, dat plaatje. Hier een link naar dat onderzoek zelf https://t.co/uDmUAJkQ73
@TTR100 @kirdonnemo @OldBallyOldBoy "I do listen to scientists as well." That's not evident. "they say they are not sure." 97% of climate scientists are certain. WhereTF have you been? "Not thousands though." Yes,thousands. One survey (2013) was of 40
RT @AdrianaSpappa: #RossiAlbertini: "il cambiamento climatico è indotto dall'effetto serra, lo dice il panel incaricato dall'ONU" Falso: i…
RT @AdrianaSpappa: #RossiAlbertini: "il cambiamento climatico è indotto dall'effetto serra, lo dice il panel incaricato dall'ONU" Falso: i…
RT @AdrianaSpappa: #RossiAlbertini: "il cambiamento climatico è indotto dall'effetto serra, lo dice il panel incaricato dall'ONU" Falso: i…
RT @AdrianaSpappa: #RossiAlbertini: "il cambiamento climatico è indotto dall'effetto serra, lo dice il panel incaricato dall'ONU" Falso: i…
RT @AdrianaSpappa: #RossiAlbertini: "il cambiamento climatico è indotto dall'effetto serra, lo dice il panel incaricato dall'ONU" Falso: i…
RT @AdrianaSpappa: #RossiAlbertini: "il cambiamento climatico è indotto dall'effetto serra, lo dice il panel incaricato dall'ONU" Falso: i…
RT @AdrianaSpappa: #RossiAlbertini: "il cambiamento climatico è indotto dall'effetto serra, lo dice il panel incaricato dall'ONU" Falso: i…
RT @AdrianaSpappa: #RossiAlbertini: "il cambiamento climatico è indotto dall'effetto serra, lo dice il panel incaricato dall'ONU" Falso: i…
RT @AdrianaSpappa: #RossiAlbertini: "il cambiamento climatico è indotto dall'effetto serra, lo dice il panel incaricato dall'ONU" Falso: i…
RT @AdrianaSpappa: #RossiAlbertini: "il cambiamento climatico è indotto dall'effetto serra, lo dice il panel incaricato dall'ONU" Falso: i…
RT @AdrianaSpappa: #RossiAlbertini: "il cambiamento climatico è indotto dall'effetto serra, lo dice il panel incaricato dall'ONU" Falso: i…
RT @AdrianaSpappa: #RossiAlbertini: "il cambiamento climatico è indotto dall'effetto serra, lo dice il panel incaricato dall'ONU" Falso: i…
RT @AdrianaSpappa: #RossiAlbertini: "il cambiamento climatico è indotto dall'effetto serra, lo dice il panel incaricato dall'ONU" Falso: i…
@Douglas87742092 @1234Fit In deiner Abbildung sind einige Fehler drin. Ich empfehle die Veröffentlichung noch einmal zu lesen: https://t.co/rjQXLf9IMT https://t.co/y11xIcH9ox
RT @AdrianaSpappa: #RossiAlbertini: "il cambiamento climatico è indotto dall'effetto serra, lo dice il panel incaricato dall'ONU" Falso: i…
RT @AdrianaSpappa: #RossiAlbertini: "il cambiamento climatico è indotto dall'effetto serra, lo dice il panel incaricato dall'ONU" Falso: i…
RT @AdrianaSpappa: #RossiAlbertini: "il cambiamento climatico è indotto dall'effetto serra, lo dice il panel incaricato dall'ONU" Falso: i…
@NickSnyders @MrMiniMuli @AufstandLastGen Naja, es gibt Metastudien, die z.B. sagen dass 97 Prozent aller wissenschaftlichen Arbeiten zum Klimawandel zwischen 1991 und 2012 diesen auf menschgemachte Ursachen zurückführen. https://t.co/GSvQQBBV70
RT @AdrianaSpappa: #RossiAlbertini: "il cambiamento climatico è indotto dall'effetto serra, lo dice il panel incaricato dall'ONU" Falso: i…
RT @AdrianaSpappa: #RossiAlbertini: "il cambiamento climatico è indotto dall'effetto serra, lo dice il panel incaricato dall'ONU" Falso: i…
RT @AdrianaSpappa: #RossiAlbertini: "il cambiamento climatico è indotto dall'effetto serra, lo dice il panel incaricato dall'ONU" Falso: i…
RT @AdrianaSpappa: #RossiAlbertini: "il cambiamento climatico è indotto dall'effetto serra, lo dice il panel incaricato dall'ONU" Falso: i…
RT @AdrianaSpappa: #RossiAlbertini: "il cambiamento climatico è indotto dall'effetto serra, lo dice il panel incaricato dall'ONU" Falso: i…
#RossiAlbertini: "il cambiamento climatico è indotto dall'effetto serra, lo dice il panel incaricato dall'ONU" Falso: il consenso del panel incaricato è sul contributo degli esseri umani al riscaldamento globale Fonte: https://t.co/FizttdwTuf https://t.c
@fmeeus1 Nee, _hier_ is het origineel artikel: https://t.co/tuFWJ0OwKt Een screenshot is geen artikel. Ook dat is wetenschap.
@NickSnyders @MrMiniMuli @AufstandLastGen Metastudien legen nahe, dass es in wissenschaftlichen Publikationen einen Konses in hohen 90er Percentiles gibt, dass diese Art rapiden Klimawandels menschgemacht ist. Weiß nicht ob du dir das zutraust, aber darfst
@ScornDes @LaBaronn3_ https://t.co/VWHzJMaXfp. Voici l’origine du 97,1% et son évolution marginale parmi les croyants et incroyants du caractère anthropique. On notera que les ⅔ des articles étudiés à l’époque ne prenaient pas position. Sensibles, s’absten
RT @AdrianaSpappa: #RossiAlbertini: la CO₂ è alla base dei cambiamenti climatici Qualcuno spieghi al fisico, nonché divulgatore scientific…
@Shannon7777l972 @someguynamedvon @bennyb082 @AshleyLeahy That isn’t the source. This is: https://t.co/JAfvAvymEJ
@fractality @RonaiChaker Dann ließ bitte auch wirklich Studien und tut nicht nur so. Lies diese Studie und sag mir dann nochmal dass die die Studien lesen schnell ins Lager der Zweifler wechseln.. https://t.co/H5BTWC8hC5
@Ich_Lebe_ganz @RonaiChaker Bitte Studien lesen und nicht nur so tun. Das ist eine Metastudie aus 2013 und damals waren bereits 97% aller Studien zu dem Thema eindeutig und einseitig. Sie sagen ALLE das gleiche. Der Klimawandel ist Menschengemacht. https:/
RT @AdrianaSpappa: #RossiAlbertini: la CO₂ è alla base dei cambiamenti climatici Qualcuno spieghi al fisico, nonché divulgatore scientific…
RT @AdrianaSpappa: #RossiAlbertini: la CO₂ è alla base dei cambiamenti climatici Qualcuno spieghi al fisico, nonché divulgatore scientific…
#RossiAlbertini: la CO₂ è alla base dei cambiamenti climatici Qualcuno spieghi al fisico, nonché divulgatore scientifico™, che la CO₂ è semmai alla base del surriscaldamento globale https://t.co/FizttdwTuf https://t.co/8miTHjyBCA
@RaulRodrig86139 @ChairoMagnet en cambio, existe este metaestudio con 12,465 papers de investigación, en el que el 97% coinciden en que la evidencia señala la realidad del cambio climático antropogénico (https://t.co/N6yx7HXUED) y el 3% restante de los pap
RT @hoxtonrich: Neither is 'more work needed' to demonstrate one positive outcome a reason to defer action in the face of overwhelming wide…
Neither is 'more work needed' to demonstrate one positive outcome a reason to defer action in the face of overwhelming wider evidence. The attacks on *all* evidence are straight from the climate deniers playbook. 2/3 https://t.co/BsGlOQ13Mv https://t.co/UB
@GneissName @DanSull36510584 @EcoSenseNow The highly misused 97% number came from this study : https://t.co/QcSThGjEwD
@heiditheblogger @Polskapawel04 @FXpsti Ähnliche Analysen zum Beispiel hier: https://t.co/eoqS1v7Yev https://t.co/iEm573bIhc Gibt noch sehr, sehr viel mehr... Aber klar, deine Social Media Bubble weiß es sicherlich besser!
@_Mom_CEO @EverGrowSam @EdKrassen With respect, that statement doesn't make any sense. If you are claiming they are "normal" then by definition, then wouldn't be "extreme". However, that is not what the data from thousands of peer-reviewed studies demons
@Roddy_Abreu @davecastr0 @metsul È só ir nas referencias bibliográficas, não vou ficar catando nome por nome pra você: https://t.co/9xXOXZNYET
@Roddy_Abreu @davecastr0 @metsul Tipo esse artigo aqui que quantificou que 97% dos pesquisadores/pesquisas estão em consenço que o aquecimento global causado por humanos é um FATO: https://t.co/ENMM8q9w7K
@FiliaVeritas @klimaatVeranda @Kronenberg211 @Voorzitter_ACP De werkelijkheid is dat @FilaVeritas ook nergens wijst op "een deel eruit" (uit het onderzoek). 🤣 In werkelijkheid kan hij de onderstaande vraag niet beantwoorden. Daarom blijft hij mist verspre
RT @bobbrand_nl: @FiliaVeritas @klimaatVeranda @Kronenberg211 @Voorzitter_ACP Bla bla bla, opnieuw een andere afleidingsmanoeuvre. 🤣 Beant…
@FiliaVeritas @klimaatVeranda @Kronenberg211 @Voorzitter_ACP Bla bla bla, opnieuw een andere afleidingsmanoeuvre. 🤣 Beantwoord nou éérst 's de vraag naar je eerdere pogingen om mist te verspreiden, hier: https://t.co/iO0cVWglao
@FiliaVeritas @klimaatVeranda @Kronenberg211 @Voorzitter_ACP Welke "onzekerheden"? Geef eens exact aan wáár die staan in het onderzoek? En op welke manier zouden die dan iets veranderen aan de conclusies? https://t.co/lHGiEmSVxQ
RT @bobbrand_nl: @FiliaVeritas @klimaatVeranda @Kronenberg211 @Voorzitter_ACP Welke "onzekerheden" worden er genegeerd? Precisie graag, in…
@FiliaVeritas @klimaatVeranda @Kronenberg211 @Voorzitter_ACP Welke "onzekerheden" worden er genegeerd? Precisie graag, in plaats van vage teksten met mist te kopiëren... De tellingen staan gewoon exact in de publicatie: https://t.co/lHGiEmSVxQ https://t.
@nzharoldblog @NZkiwifreak 1st of all, there is no consensus. Why don’t you go back to the original papers of the study by IPCC & show me the consensus. https://t.co/wE8QJ5mMvr https://t.co/faZTf2urZp https://t.co/Wqy1murRxZ
@DavySlenderass @DawnTJ90 @Cris_Paunescu @gt2andy @Fairestisles @KenworthCowboy1 @Greenpeace Please don't make that sort of posting. It is cringe worthy and makes you look pathetic. And yes - THINK. https://t.co/TWarmyyZbP The abstract below shows wher
@ValdejalonMemes @MiguelPuga44 Además ya hicieron un estudio similar en 2013 que llegaban a la misma conclusión y utilizando una metodología diferente. https://t.co/WnCH7niPMo Y otro estudio que sugiere que de los pocos que niegan el cambio climático ant
@ElderberryCham1 @DawnTJ90 As far as I can make out it is based on: https://t.co/TWarmyyrmh The abstract below shows where the 97% comes from - but 33% would be a better summary... it isn't 97% of all scientists, or even of all climate scientists... it
@FeZZaNTPLuKKa @FFS_WhatNow @HerdImmunity12 @1 https://t.co/uAN768Ja0S Well it is really.
@JusperMachogu The "consensus" came from J. Cook's paper BUT the results have been manipulated. Abstract: "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
@differentdoktor @Sima_Ondra Dnešní “debata” o klimatu je nafouklá pár vědci, kteří plavou proti proudu a často jsou placení zájmovými skupinami. Zbytek je v poměrně drtivé shodě. A to si prostě jen tak nekoupíte. https://t.co/qT8zS6b3pO https://t.co/1SV
@waldenmonk @DFliesstext @RichterHedwig Und wie gesagt, keine Theorie. Durch alle Modelle bewiesen die zur Verfügung stehen. Überwältigender weltweiter Konsens seit Jahrzehnten https://t.co/eCMreZ7XGa https://t.co/75GBYBx6Os https://t.co/s2BK4nmsmY https:/
@ghazibousselmi1 @DawnTJ90 As far as I can tell the 97% comes from this paper https://t.co/TWarmyyrmh If you read it you will see the paper actually says 97% of 33% - so really about 30%. The paper examines a sample of papers. it says 66% express no op
@Stephen57908892 @GeraldKutney I thought that was your problem so all you can do is cherry-pick a short period after the hottest ENSO event to date and call it a cooling trend...Until this one... Diaper change in 3, 2, 1,.... https://t.co/3LGW0an9xY
@Irimikiki @youri2b @Cokkkoo @AnthoGrillon + Cadeau des publications montrant le consensus scientifique dans la littérature -https://t.co/fEPSAecZ9V -https://t.co/DC01yrhpX8
@jepajunen @AnuRuhanen @MariPantsar Todisteet kyllä löytyy melko helposti, kun vähän jaksaa etsiä: 1/2 https://t.co/uNmejXycAg https://t.co/oHZ7QrpLHE https://t.co/FJpkzu3tmW https://t.co/C5olgZ2hIm https://t.co/0lbB2VvZdR https://t.co/8njJocJqaG https://t
Y es cierto que pueden que algunos estén exagerando el tema del cambio climático. Realmente considero que la gravedad no lo sabe ninguno, todavía existe mucha incertidumbre. Pero el consenso en él área de su existencia es bastante claro (97.1%): https://t
@Timcast False Consensus! 2004 Oreskes 928/928=100% https://t.co/qBlYCcWsOF 2009 Zimmerman 75/77=97% https://t.co/2YAbQT3ksP 2010 Anderegg 97%-98% https://t.co/5aKQY2pMSK 2013 Cook 3.896/4.014=97% https://t.co/dTLqsR2Oys GlobalWarming/ClimetChange NASA 97%
RT @Canadia56668243: @disclosetv 97% of scientists agree is a lie. Here’s the study that claim came from. You can see what they did by read…
#auspol Read this- he should be in jail. Read how the data was analysed.However it does not matter the scam is re-inforced by those terrified by the Alarmist Maffia https://t.co/n3R76Q2KP7
@PacomeSrt @DrLoupis Many more other sources https://t.co/0yoQJzqly8 https://t.co/nKbDH6laXE
97% was always after disregarding 66% of the data pool. Here's the paper look for yourself https://t.co/2tVnqQ6T5K Yes thats the only source for "97%"
@jordanbpeterson 97% was always after disregarding 66% of the data pool. Here's the paper look for yourself https://t.co/2tVnqQ6T5K
@manitobashome It's methodology that's problem. This is the famous article that started the consensus "Among abstracts EXPRESSING A POSITION on AGW, 97.1% endorsed consensus "https://t.co/OTyXChvVMP -66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW - emaile
RT @Canadia56668243: @jordanbpeterson Here’s the study the 97% claim came from. They lied. https://t.co/GVkPk03zeV https://t.co/Cynpl4b3UK
@jordanbpeterson Here’s the study the 97% claim came from. They lied. https://t.co/GVkPk03zeV https://t.co/Cynpl4b3UK
@hytrefde @borghi_claudio Ma cos'è, devo fare ricerca di bibliografia scientifica per lei? Mica sono la sua segretaria, se ne paghi una se non ha voglia di cercare. Cerchi su Google Scholar "paleoclimatologia" e "metanalisi cambiamento climatico", in ingl
@postmelownn @stagerbn @yooHannes Die Wissenschaftler die sich die Frage gestellt haben, ob und welchen Einfluss der Mensch hat sind sich auch einig, dass der Mensch die Hauptschuld trägt: https://t.co/PAZa2969dj
@IanJaeger29 2013 Cook et al Cartoonist at Queensland U with volunteer students examine 11,944 abstracts but only 4.014 where considered and of this 3.896 confirmed ClimateChange 3.896/4.014=97% https://t.co/dTLqsRkpX2 but... https://t.co/mSuKgK65IY
@GenestPascal2 @tvanouvelles Ça demontre bien le consensus scientifique à ce propos: « 97.1% of abstracts endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming » https://t.co/myxgbdr1GG
@TonyClimate The 97% consensus was a lie. https://t.co/GVkPk03zeV https://t.co/zOFN5IHwJx
@GordonG02510335 @rudifussi Es sind nicht 97% aller Wissenschaftler sondern 97% aller wissenschaftlichen Arbeiten (peer-reviewed!) zum Thema Klimawandel (knapp 12.000) deren Abstracts analysiert wurden und die Ihnen - grob gesagt - widersprechen 💁🏻♂️ Hie
@SapientHetero @WeatherProf @Climatologist49 News? I don't get scientific information from the news. So here you go: 1. The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change https://t.co/acJ0t1zFfQ 2. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the
@s_guilbeault @SOPFEU @WWAttribution The truth is irrefutable, the science has been corrupted. As you can see, the 97% consensus is a lie. https://t.co/GVkPk03zeV https://t.co/HA0qpbpTkf
@iluminatibot Here’s the study that ridiculous claim came from. Take a min, read the abstract and do the math. Then throw this in their face when they claim a 97% consensus. https://t.co/GVkPk03zeV https://t.co/D1hLfNWNpq
@GamperElias @StahlmannRolf @SHomburg Bitteschön, hier ist der Link zur Studie: https://t.co/Pd19UJrED1
@JoeJack16 @andrewp109 @TonyClimate @NOAA So you're telling me that of all the papers with opinions on AGW, 97% says it's true. Did you know that authors were invited to self-rate their papers? Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% sa
@VincentVandep8 Beste Vincent. Leest u het abstract van Cook et al (2013). Die 97% gaat niet over een enquête onder klimaatwetenschappers.. https://t.co/uhZWrvnIMd
@jayjay13a @VERBAL_CHANCLA @Mikel_Jollett “Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.” https://t.co/YFCFvJ2t7z